Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beverly Marsh


 * 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 redirect to It (novel). This is a closing of all three characters' articles at the same time. The way the articles are now, there is a plot synopsis (already covered in the novel), adaptations (movies articles) and appearances in other media, which can be covered in some short sentences somewhere. Those points have been outlined in the discussion. If there are more sources with analysis or so, then maybe return separate articles but not in the present state. Tone 12:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Beverly Marsh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Again, deprodded without rationale or improvement. Apparently this editor doesn't understand what "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page" means. Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 23:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 23:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to It (novel) - The three "It" characters currently at AFD could have probably been bundled together as a single nomination, as they all have the same issues. That said, my response will be the same for all three.  None of the character's demonstrate any independent notability.  The sources available are either reporting on things such as casting announcements, or are purely plot summaries.  The main article on the novel has a fully plot summary, including their full roles in it, as well as the information on their casting in both adaptations.  As plausible search terms, they should redirect there.  Rorshacma (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "Zero real world notability." There's sources talking about Beverly (reliable ones) already in the references section. Argument is invalid. The end. 2604:6000:130E:49B0:14B0:D20:E47A:B253 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Rorshacma.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to draft. Updated to keep below Wow... This one... On the SAME DAY the page was created, it was turned into a redirect.  Then there's the 7 days before deletion nominations with a blank Talk page... Looks like it's still under construction.  Give them time (and help, ideally...), and maybe sources will develop... if not, maybe the draft will be abandoned and speedy deleted. -2pou (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I searched for sources to save this and found nothing but plot synopsis, film and book reviews with tangential coverage. There really wasn't any significant coverage to warrant a seperate article on Beverly Marsh. Redirect is the best solution.4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for following up with feedback and closing the loop (on all three of these). The CinemaBlend article on Beverly (already linked) is actually an excellent example of a source that satisfies GNG with a good breakdown on the character. It's a lot of plot, but it is interwoven and concluded with analysis.  It looks to be the only one, though... I defer to the discussion. -2pou (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect per . Daask (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to It (novel) per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Americana has published a good journal article that can be attributed to the It characters: . It's Plot in Part I/Part II, but the intro/conclusion are analysis. Stronger subjects of analysis and what they represent are Eddie, Bill, Mike (no wiki article, though), and Audra (no wiki article again); while discussion is weaker for Richie, Ben, and Beverly, but all do come together as representations of Baby Boomers.   Putting it out for consideration as a source to establish notability. These have potential, but I don't have access  . -2pou (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that these sources may be substantial, but without getting access to them it's impossible to say for certain. I do agree that the first journal article provides some unique analysis of the character outside of the traditional text. Unfortunately, unless we can actually see all the journals (or if another editor with access can vouch that the material is substantial by WP:AGF), then the decision to redirect is really the best one.4meter4 (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per request at Special:diff/919590895
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources e.g. (page 149),  (page150-151),  (page 39-40).Pontificalibus  12:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep since GNG seems to be satisfied now. Multiple sources have been identified between that have some significant coverage of Beverly. Already sourced CinemaBlend article discusses the strength of women she represents.  Americana Journal discusses her representation of an aspect of Baby Boomers.  The linked Dark Descent essays give enough context to show she is being analyzed on p 150 especially, being considered King's idea of the role and nature of women.  Also found this book  which breaks her down on p. 95.  That's multiple independent, reliable, significant sources.  The article should be improved not deleted.  WP:NEXIST in the WP Notability test says that the sources only need to exist, not be present in the article.  Incorporating them will strengthen the article, but that can be done over time. -2pou (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SIGCOV & WP:NEXIST a notable character Wm335td (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect - There seem to be a couple good statements in the sources above, but I don't think it's enough to actually hold an article. TTN (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. I am not seeing anything beyond some mentions in passing. If a fictional character is mentioned in few sentences in few books this is still not sufficient for a stand alone page. There is no evidence that the book mentions found above go beyond a few mentions in passing in few sentences.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:11, 18 October 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.