Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Pangborn


 * 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 merge to Castle Rock (Stephen King). Clear consensus to merge to Castle Rock (Stephen King) (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Alan Pangborn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable character. Sources 4-8 are trivial mentions at best. I see nothing worth merging. TTN (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm usually in pretty firm agreement that the fiction articles TTN nominates need something done, even if I don't always think a neat and tidy deletion is the best approach. But here, I'm wondering exactly what's wrong with the Romper and Uproxx sources, which seem entirely dedicated to a dicussion of the character? Now, certainly, the plot retreads could be later down with section hat links to the earlier novels, but that's an editorial issue. I'd need to pull them to see what all is involved, but there are several scholarly articles that seem to make commentary on the character too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing of substance in any of these sources aside from one paragraph from creators on their decision to include the character, which can easily fit in the main article. They're just a bunch of fluff articles that say nothing. TTN (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What main article? The main point about this character is that they are recurring and so appear in several works. Andrew D. (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The TV show, which is the basis for all of these references. In response to below, sources 1-3 aren't anything special either. I initially paid them no mind because they weren't even used in such a way to even imply they were important. There is little from which to build an article, which is why the person who added them seemingly couldn't even use them in a proper manner. TTN (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The article linked below – Castle Rock (Stephen King) – is about the setting, not the TV show. It seems that there's isn't actually a single main article for this stuff.  The character appears in multiple works in multiple media for which we have many articles.  It is therefore better to consolidate our information about the character under the obvious heading – his name.  Putting it elsewhere would obfuscate the topic and so confuse our readership.  There's no reason for this or benefit to be gained.  If it works, don't fix it. Andrew D. (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the others who recommended it, but my recommendation to merge to the setting was intentional. All of the works he has appeared in, be it the books, movie adaptation, or current TV show, take place there.  He is/was the sheriff and resident of said town, which is why that would be the single main article in which the information regarding him would be appropriately covered.  Rorshacma (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep There's a glass-half-empty problem with the nomination which dismisses some sources but, by implication, the others are ok. The rest seems to be arguments to avoid such as WP:JNN and WP:ITSTRIVIAL. Relevant policies such as WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE indicate that we should not be considering deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Castle Rock (Stephen King) which seems like the most clear target for merging. Not individually notable, and the fact that they appear in multiple works doesn't automatically guarantee them an article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Castle Rock (Stephen King). The coverage is niche/passing. This in uproxx is the best source, and it dedicates two paragraphs to the character, summarizing his biography with little analysis outside differences in his bio in book vs movie. I don't think this level of coverage is sufficient for a stand alone entry. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Castle Rock (Stephen King) per above. The coverage is too passing/plot summary based to support an independent article.  But, as a major character who has appeared in multiple books/adaptations that take place in the fictional town, merging some of the content to that article makes sense.  If it is kept, though, it definitely needs to be rewritten, as the current article is acting like his appearance in the Castle Rock tv series is a direct continuation of his appearances in the book, which it very clearly is not.  Rorshacma (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge Not independently notable enough for a separate article. Reywas92Talk 20:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge Per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge. Merge to Castle Rock (Stephen King). The article solely is not notable enough to exist in its own right, so I believe merging is the best option. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 18:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge perfectly fine article with sourcing that denotes notability. If it is worth merging, it is also worth keeping. WP:PRESERVE Wm335td (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge,The article is not notable enough to stand alone, but should not be deleted either, Merge to Castle Rock (Stephen King). Alex-h (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to the castle rock. Not suitable for standing alone at now.— Harshil want to talk? 01:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.