Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blind Dick


 * 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   '''Delete/merge and redirect - This is a secondary character that has no other secondary references. I suggest that when it is merged, merge to the popular culture section... and if you are really bold... rewrite the pop culture section. (See talk page of Cool_Hand_Luke for the contents of this article if interested in merging ——  nix eagle ''' 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Blind Dick

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This character does not establish notability independent of its film through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep on the grounds of TTN making way too many AfD nominations. I would recommend a maximum of three a day. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Discuss the article and not the nom. MuZemike  ( talk ) 04:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. You're right, of course. I apologize. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge I always think it better to judge on the quality of the articles & the nominations, not individuals who may have authored them or nominated them . In this case, although the film, Cool Hand Luke is extremely notable (being on the National Film Registry, this is a very peripheral character and inappropriate for an individual article--unless there has been significant commentary on him, which I would tend to doubt & even if there is some, I still think it would be better as part of a more comprehensive article. The problem with the multiple nominations of this sort is it obscures these actual distinctions. We can deal with any reasonable number of good well presented nominations, while one cookie-cutter nomination without specifics is one too many.  DGG (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Do not merge The article on the movie Cool Hand Luke does not have any sections on characters. A merge would result in a secondary character having his own character section. It would be the only character section in the article while main characters do without. The content from this Blind Dick article is badly written and there are no sources listed at all. A merge will only reduce the quality of the main article and it will not add anything to it. I suggesting redirecting to the Cast section. DDDtriple3 (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect One-off characters rarely ever need separate articles. This one reads WP:OR-ish, which is bad for a merger per DDDtriple3. – sgeureka t•c 20:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and create a section on characters in Cool Hand Luke. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect The notability of the film is a binary status. It is either notable or it isn't.  In this case, Cool hand Luke is a very famous film.  It is critically very well regarded.  But it is just as notable as Cool Runnings.  One of the reasons why notability isn't inherited is that there is no rational way to speak about notability as a magnitude.  Is two NYT mentions more than a book chapter?  Is an article in The American Economic Review worth more than 5 articles in People Magazine?  The answer to all those questions is likely "huh?", as we can't assign some value to notability.  So Cool Hand Luke is notable.  Good.  What do we find when we look for the subject of this article?  Not much on google books.  Nothing on google scholar, though they don't index all the humanities journals.  Nothing on an archive search of gnews.  Deletion or redirection is a perfectly acceptable outcome here. Protonk (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Googling this is really hard, if only because Dick's Sporting Goods sells hunting blinds. However, I was unable to find any references to the character in the movie outside of discussion of the movie or the actor who played him. Also, I found some other references to people called "blind Dick"; in particular the first references outside of us, IMDB, and youTube are for an ex-slave who lived in North Carolina and was enough of a celebrity to get a NYT obituary. I got a bunch of other hits, including a placename in Canada. I'm sensing that anyone who knows about the character knows about the movie. Mangoe (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete since the character is not notable outside of his presence in the one film. There is zero reason to have this article as a spin-off of the film article, the latter which could use some development of real-world context. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 22:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:WAF reads that "Very rarely should such spinout articles be about a singular topic (e.g., character, plot item); either that topic has demonstrated its own notability, or should be merged into the main article or existing spinout articles." And this is a case of an unnecessary spinout article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, atleast in this case, and that's why I said merge. I assume you mean that as well. DGG (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If the valuable information is not in the main article, yes, merge it there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2008 (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.