Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wemmick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- John Wemmick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
John Wemmick is not an important character and does not need his own article. DrBat (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto an appropriate character list.Edward321 (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Changing to Keep based on sources found by Phil Bridger. Edward321 (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 08:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Redirect - The article appears to be original research. If anything is to be merged, it must cite secondary sources. PDCook (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete original research and Merge the rest into the right character list. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has been the subject of scholarly papers[1][2] and has plenty more coverage in the sources found by the Google Books and Google Scholar searches linked above. Let's not open ourselves to ridicule as being the encyclopaedia that covers the minutiae of Star Wars and Pokémon but deletes articles about important characters in the accepted literary canon. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
