Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Denbrough (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep per the number of AfD participants here recommending to do so. However, (personal opinion) after reading through the article, I must admit that the article suffers from WP:REFBOMBing, and most if it just references plot, and not even always about this character. This makes the article a likely target for another AfD in the future, so I recommend thinking about other solutions for covering the fictional IT elements that span several adaptations. – sgeureka t•c 20:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Bill Denbrough
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was at AfD and closed as a redirect in September, recreated a day later with more sources, and then has shuffled around between draftspace and mainspace. My initial reaction was that the redirect should be restored, but that has been done enough. There has been a number of new sources added since the last AfD, and so I think the best possible situation here is to have another AfD instead of boldly redirecting the article for the fourth time.

I'm also having a difficult time determining just which sources would demonstrate this character's notability. I'm happy to withdraw or change my opinion if those are clearly demonstrated. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep While this article is still not in the best shape it could be, I think there is enough sources present to prove notability. There are also many sources present in books avalable from Google Books which are not present on this page that go into more depth.★Trekker (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding some more sources. At the moment I’m on a family vacation in New Zealand, so I don’t have much internet, but I‘ll add them once I get a chance to! - SeanTheYeti452
 * Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage regarding real world notability to satisfy WP:GNG. Not every character in a popular book is notable outside the work in which they appear. But because the book is popular, there are going to be lots of stuff written about them in fan-related media. Onel 5969  TT me 23:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's unfair to characterize all coverage of this character as comming from "fan-related media", I gave it a Google Books search and I have found coverage of the character in The Complete Stephen King Universe, The Shape Under the Sheet, Stephen King: The Second Decade, Danse Macabre to The Dark Half, The Moral Voyages of Stephen King, Dissecting Stephen King: From the Gothic to Literary Naturalism, Landscape of fear: Stephen King's American Gothic, The Dark Descent: Essays Defining Stephen King's Horrorscape, The Stephen King phenomenon, Imagining the Worst: Stephen King and the Representation of Women among several. Like I said above this page is not in the best shape, but an article not being great is no reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All of which is fan-based discussion. I really respect what you do on WP, and I understand your viewpoint. I simply think that fictional stuff should have real-world notability, not simply in-universe or fan-based sourcing.  Onel 5969  TT me 23:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how all those books should be considered "fan-based". If one were to cite 10 published works on Poe or Lovecraft I don't think it should be disregarded as "fan based" just because they cover fiction when the author is a highly notable individual who's works have been disected a ton within literature. King may not be as big as the the two forementioned but he is a giant within horror and his work has been the subject of much analysis, that includes his characters. This isn't just some minor character of his either, its a main figure in one of his most adapted and acclaimed novels.★Trekker (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Books about an author's work aren't "fan-based discussion", they're literary criticism. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, the sources establish notability, the article needs to be improved, not deleted. Deletion is disruptive, and this character clearly has notability. - SeanTheYeti452
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per ; available sources establish notability well beyond fan-based discussion. The article needs improvement and will surely get it, but it clearly passes WP:GNG and should not be deleted. — Hunter Kahn 12:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment if and  now recognize that many of the article's references, shouldn't be characterized as "fan-based", could you please return here, and say so?  This would be in the best interests of the project, as it would allow an early closure, and thus save the valuable time of people who would otherwise read this AFD over the next six days.  If, on the other hand, you still think deletion is appropriate, could you make a more serious effort to explain what is wrong with the existing references?   There is a trend I have found alarming.  For years now experienced contributors have been nominating articles for deletion, or endorsing deletion, based on their personal opinions that those article's topics aren't inherently serious enough to merit a standalone article.  This is counter-policy.  NPOV, VERIFY and NOR call upon us to rely on the opinions of RS.  The opinions of RS count.  Our opinions do not.   I have spent years covering controversial topics, where I personally disagreed with every single RS.  So far as I am concerned, when one is considering working on a topic where our opinions diverge from those of RS, we have only two policy compliant choices: (1) do our best to keep our personal opinions to ourselves, and do our best to only contribute text that neutrally summarizes the RS we disagree with; or (2) opt out from covering that topics.  Let other people deal with them.   SportingFlyer, your nomination doesn't actually give a specific justification for deletion.  In particular, your second sentence sounds, well, like just your casual and unexamined gut feeling.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I typically switch between the older and newer pages in New Page Patrol, this was one of the older pages, and it said it had been recently deleted. I looked at the history to do a bit of research, and saw the article had been recreated and redirected repeatedly. After looking through many of the sources in the article, I didn't see any coverage of the character I thought significant enough to warrant a new article on. Instead of redirecting and turning this into an edit war, I thought an AfD discussion would be the best solution. I've looked through the books mentioned above by and while the character's name gets mentioned several times, at no point does that coverage appear to be significant - for instance, in Dissecting Stephen King, the character's name only appears briefly on three pages, the Complete Stephen King Universe discusses what seems to be every character, the Shape Under the Sheet is an encyclopaedia of minutia about King novels, The Moral Voyage appears to be okay but it's printed in Courier New, the copyright of the book is flagrantly wrong, and it appears to have been republished (ie there's a chance it's not a reliable source.) The fact the article is source-bombed (there are 11 references for a single sentence) makes this very difficult to check and see if the sources in the article are both reliable and cover the subject significantly. I don't have any opinion on whether this should be kept or not, but I don't see how it passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources, I'm happy to let others direct me to those sources, and I'm not going to be keeping my opinions to myself. This needed to be discussed, and I'm fine if it's kept, but I would like to see actual significant coverage of this character. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your disecting of the sources seems flawed to me, 1) how many times a characters name is mentined is rather trivial compared to the information one can extract from the text, 2) claiming that because the book covers a lot of Stephen Kings characters that makes the coverage of this specific character less worthwhile is a poor way to reason in my mind, only thing that really implies is that King has written many characters with coverage, which is incredibly unsuprising considering his career and success, 3) I don't see how a book being republished is as issue (maybe I'm misunderstanding something here), 4) when deciding if a topic is notable one should not look at only the article itself as the shape it is for the moment, if we only did that then tons of articles on some of the most notable things in the world would be deleted, the best thing to do is to search for sources oneself (Im aware this take much more effort but it is the safe way to do it) and judge what you find. Those books I cited are only some of the few I could find within two pages of searching on Google Books.★Trekker (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At least for me, the Google Books falls off by about Page 4. I don't think searching for the character's name within the text is a flawed way to search at all - if there was a chapter dedicated to the character I'd change my !vote to keep. The fact the character's only mentioned a couple times within these sources is a red flag to me. I have no problem with using the information found within encyclopaedias to flesh out the article, but using an encyclopaedia which covers every single character as the basis for notability is a red flag to me. The fact the book has been republished isn't itself an issue, but I can't find that much information about the book or author, and the way it's typeset doesn't look professional (looks like something self-published with a typewriter) which is a red flag to me. The fact the page is badly source-bombed is a red flag to me. I've even looked through Google Scholar, which has a number of mentions of Denbrough but I haven't found anything I would consider significant. I'm still not sure this character is notable enough for a standalone article. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, though. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it seems rather clear that you've already made up your mind, I'm not going to try to push you if this is simply the way you feel after looking at all the avalable sources. I've made my case and am happy with it, if we disagree then we disagree.★Trekker (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, it's on track to be kept anyways and there's nothing wrong with disagreement! I'm still happy to listen to a response as to why these sources demonstrate notability, as it's not obvious to me (or a couple others) - it may not get me to change how I feel about this particular article but at the very least it will make it easier for me to patrol the project going forward, as none of the keep !voters have discussed why the sources (or which sources) are significant so far. If you could pick what you think are the WP:THREE best sources I'd still appreciate your input, but no worries if you want to move on. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , you challenged the reliability of the 1989 book by King biographer Tony Magistrale, in part, because it was published in the courier font. I think that dismissal was premature, as a google news search on Magistrale supports his reliability.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I looked to see if the book could have been self-published rather than looking at the author. It was originally published by Starmont House, a specialty publisher, and that link notes why the quality of the publication was so terrible. (To be fair, if the criticism had been published academically, I wouldn't have any trouble with the source at all.) SportingFlyer  T · C  04:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for returning here.
 * In the first couple of paragraphs of your reply you refer to checking the references in the article. Excuse me if I voice a concern over this approach.  Topics that are notable should not be deleted when the current state of the article is weak.  Rather, as per WP:BEFORE, don't those who call for deletion have an obligation to look beyond the references in the article?  Don't they have an obligation to conduct an independent web search, so they could form their own informed conclusion as to whether the topic is or isn't notable.  Maybe you did this, and just didn't mention it.  But, if you don't do a web search, to reach your own informed conclusion as to whether a topic is or isn't notable, I would strongly encourage you to start doing so.  It is what is best for the project.  Unfortunately, in recent years, we see an increasing number of contributors nominating articles without complying with BEFORE.  And we see an increasing number of people who take the nominator's claims about article's references at face value, and add a "delete" opinion, without even looking at the article in question.  Finally, a large number of our articles can't have the underlying notability of their topics confirmed or refuted by a naive web search.  (1) the web search links at the top of an AFD can be almost worthless when an article's title is disambiguated; (2) naive web searches can be insufficient when a genuinely notable person has more famous namesakes; (3) naive web searches are generally insufficient when an individual played a role in a recent highly covered event.  There were over half a dozen people who tried to get the newly created article on Chesley Sullenberger deleted - because their use of google was naive.  I found, on that day, that, even though 99 percent of the coverage of Sullenberger was recent and repetitive coverage of his heroic landing, the remaining 1 percent included significant coverage of earlier events, so he wasn't a BLP1E.
 * With regard to significant coverage. A dozen references, or even one hundred references, that each report the same single detail, do not add up to significant coverage.  But a dozen references, or even half a dozen references, that each only report one or two details, can add up to significant coverage, if they document a half dozen different details.
 * With regard to dismissing encyclopedias. I think we all agree that encyclopedia ar as refticles written by non-notable individuals, who aren't reliable sources, should not be used as references.  But encyclopedias, or encyclopedia like things, written by reliable sources, should continue be used as references.  I used to keep my copy of Isaac Asimov's Biographical Dictionary of Science beside my computer.  I have used references to the Canadian Dictionary of Biography in dozens of articles.   Similarly, a blanket dismissal of "blogs" is ill-advised.  Some online publications called blogs are highly reliable and highly regarded.  Newspaper columnists who cover the US Supreme Court routinely cite the opinions voiced in SCOTUSBLOG.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a bit of a unique AfD. I'm not actively looking to delete the article, but rather am attempting, procedurally, to see if restoring a redirect is the proper course of action. I almost always conduct a WP:BEFORE search (the exceptions don't include this article, but rather where the reason for deletion is obvious), and the initial search didn't bring up anything that I thought established notability beyond the sources in the article. I also focused on the difference in the sourcing between the last redirected article and the current article, as the current version contains over 20 new sources to go through, so I primarily looked to see which of those sources demonstrated notability The last AfD closed with the statement (quoting : If there are more sources with analysis or so, then maybe return separate articles but not in the present state. (What's also interesting is no character section exists at the It (novel) article.) Since this AfD, I've also searched Google Books and Google Scholar. If you're insinuating I've missed sources, I'm happy to review any additional sources, but I simply do not understand which of the available sources are clearly reliable and clearly demonstrate notability. I'm also not suggesting encyclopaedias aren't reliable sources. I'm concerned the fact something was mentioned in an specialist encyclopaedia doesn't automatically suggest the topic notable enough for Wikipedia. Is every single King character notable since it was listed in The Complete Stephen King Universe? The Shape under the Sheet is an encyclopaedia which includes minutia such as "Forty miles an hour" (the speed Denbrough drove) and "United Flight 41" (the flight number another character flew in another book.) Ultimately, I'm interested in the question - what makes a fictional character notable, and which sources out there show Denbrough is notable enough for his own article per WP:GNG? And ultimately, I'm interested in answering the question through identifying which sources demonstrate his notability, which no one here has really done yet. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: The sources show clear notability. Toughpigs (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Clicking through the references in the article, I believe significant coverage in reliable sources has been achieved.  D r e a m Focus  16:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Looking through about ten of the sources, I'm seeing a mix of trivial mentions, no mentions at all, staff interviews, trivial pop culture articles, etc. I think shoving every single possible reference into it hoping they stick isn't really the best way to try to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not addressing the literature I've found.★Trekker (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , checking for references that support the notability of articles before AFD is one area where wikipedia contributors efforts routinely fall short. If you meant to suggest that those who contributed to the article should have been more selective, and used fewer but better references, you are correct.  Note: this is an editorial issue - not grounds for deletion.  Your comment very strongly suggests you made a very common error - one I already warned about, in this discussion.  It sounds like, instead of conducting your own web search, you merely looked at the article's existing references.   However, our policies are, and always have been, that the notability of a topic should not be evaluated on the existing state of the article.  When we have a weak article on a topic that is nevertheless notable, policy calls on us to improve the weak article, not delete it.  So, please, don't form your conclusions on the notability of topics based on the references currently in the article.   Is this more work?  Sure.  Is this a problem?  No.   The wikipedia has a kind of auto-immune disorder.  When humans have auto-immune disorders their immune systems attacks healthy organs.  Well, AFD is part of the wikipedia's immune system.  We made policy changes, and technical changes, that have made it easier to nominate articles for deletion.  It is too easy.  TTN, the efforts you made to look at references to support the notability of the Bill Denbrough character have fallen short.   Tony Magistrale is one of King's most respected biographers.  His academic career has focussed on King, and he is widely quoted, and asked to comment by journalists.  So, what does he say say about Denbrough?   King may have created hundreds of fictional characters, maybe thousands of fictional characters, in his many stories.  I don't know how many wikipedia articles we have on King's characters.  I would be very surprised if most of King's characters were n't notable topics, were n't the target of serious commentary from serious academics and serious literary critics.  I would have no problem deleting or redirecting articles on King characters who haven't been the target of serious commentary.  However, the Bill Denbrough character is, apparently, one of the small subset of King characters who serious academics and literary critics have identified as a character King uses as a surrogate.  The Bill Denbrough character is one of the small subset of King's characters who are authors, like King.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - I didn't explicitly say keep, above.
 * The article needs a new lead paragraph. The Tony Magistrale book, prematurely dismissed above, explains why the character of Bill Denbrough is more notable than the hundreds of other characters King created in his books.  In some of his books King creates characters who are writers.  Denbrough is one of the much more limited set of characters King created, who are writers, who King uses to covertly reply to his critics, or to comment on the life of a writer.  The lead paragraph should state this as the character's primary notability claim.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Question Strictly on a procedural level, how did we even get here? I can understand this getting to  with the recent removed redirect triggering a potential review, but how did this get to  where the redirect was recently restored in the first place?  It looks like the page was restored here after the AfD concerns were believed to be addressed (3 edits prior was Draftspace → Mainspace), and I see that  is also a new page reviewer.  Does this mean that carrying out a History merge as a technical request does not include marking a new page review on the new page curation log?  I'm guessing that's the only only way it would remain on the pending review list...  Should the steps that go into a move/merge like this include a "new page review" before its carried out and rejecting the request if it's not satisfactory? Or are the two just entirely separate processes with no bridge between the two unless someone carrying out the request goes above and beyond? (This is just a question that could lead to potential process improvements.) -2pou (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, any time a redirect is removed, the page gets flagged for NPP oversight. It generally works pretty well. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right for the redirect, which then came to you. What I didn't understand is if it was sitting with a NPP flag after after the history merge, and why bother with the merge in the first place, if it wasnt going to pass a NPP review later. -2pou (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:BEFORE reveals sources WP:NEXIST. Pontificalibus found a few. this was my !vote in the last AfD and it has not changed. Wm335td (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.