Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Kaspbrak


 * 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Eddie Kaspbrak

 * – ( 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. Fails WP:GNG. While there is coverage of the character, it is all in-universe. Zero real world notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge with It. Apparently WP:NCHAR is unfortunately dormant and doesn't contain a lot of info so it's hard to judge under what parameters a fictional character should have its own article, but seeing as he's only appeared in a single work (plus the movie versions), I don't see the need.110.165.185.203 (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A fictional character should be judged by WP:GNG with sources that discuss the author's use of the character objectively. On your second point, he hasn't appeared in just a single work - according to this source the character appeared in The Bird and the Album and Dreamcatcher, and according to this source appeared in Misery.--Pontificalibus 06:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - It seems like improper weight is being placed on the sources currently in the article. They do not establish notability. TTN (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The current state of sourcing in an article is not a reason to delete. Notability is based on the existence of sources.Pontificalibus 06:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources e.g. "Imagining the Worst: Stephen King and the Representation of Women", "The Dark Descent: Essays Defining Stephen King's Horrorscape", "Landscape of fear: Stephen King's American Gothic".Pontificalibus 06:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Draft. Updated to keep below Another 7 days from creation and the article is nominated for deletion without offers/suggestions on how to improve the article. Perhaps in the draftspace some of what Pontificalibus  found can be incorporated, along with other potential sources that might take more than a week to get from a library and contribute. I see no reason why a deletion is the answer on something so new until it's clear no one is attempting to improve it.  -2pou (talk) 18:59, 2 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) 23:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although 2pou has found one good independent source, the other articles are not able to be used toward verifiability because they are behind a paywall and even 2pou can not vouch that they are substantial. Therefore, still fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. If an editor with access is able to confirm they are substantial refs about the character Eddie Kaspbrak (i.e. an original analysis and not a plot summary), I will gladly change my vote.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is not in question here - we are examining notability. Per WP:NEXIST it doesn't matter that the sources are not freely available online, we just have to demonstrate the existence of such sources. I have already given three sources above, but here is another one which you should be able to access sufficiently to see that the coverage is significant.Pontificalibus 06:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, I'm seeing very little but plot regurgitation in the article you just gave as supposed "significant coverage". I don't think it is. This is exactly why saying sources exist is not enough. At least one person (not all editors, since it is behind a pay wall) needs to actually look at it to determmine that it has some real analysis beyond plot regurgitation. That can be assumed in good faith. But if an offline source is not actually being seen by anyone, than it really can't be counted in good faith. "Imagining the Worst: Stephen King and the Representation of Women" for example doesn't even cover the work from which this character is from. Deletion is still the best option, as this collective group has only actually been able to read one good source.4meter4 (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to disregard that one source, fine, but as I said above, "Imagining the Worst: Stephen King and the Representation of Women" does cover the subject in detail, for example pages 131-132 go into detail about Eddie's relationship with his mother, and how the It monster symbolizes to Eddie his mother's relationship with him. This is clearly detailed analysis sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Likewise "The Dark Descent: Essays Defining Stephen King's Horrorscape" contains two pages of analysis, 150-151, which discuss how the author uses the character of Eddie to associate some of the major themes of the novel; sexuality and the link between obesity & death. It seems that the sources given by 2pou above contain similar if not more extensive coverage of the subject. There are really no grounds to delete this on the basis of notability or lack of sources. Pontificalibus  06:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you missed something when looking at that particular source, 4meter4. It is listed in the works covered (third from last) in the summary.  I'm guessing an easy miss since it's only 2 characters, but a search will show a few instances of "Eddie" or "Eddie Kaspbrak" clearly attributed to the It character.  (Can't get a ton of context, but the 3 viewable page snippets appear to be somewhat significant.) -2pou (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm satisfied that The Dark Descent has significant coverage as well based on the context I could read, making multiple GNG sources being evaluated as acceptable on this discussion. Plus I believe Pontificalibus 's summary of Imagining the Worst coverage. -2pou (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge to It (novel). All coverage of the character are in the context of his only appearance and does not have notability outside the book or requiring a separate article, the WP:PLOT material being redundant. Reywas92Talk 02:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:SIGCOVand the article has WP:RSs. Pontificalibus also found sources, clearly WP:NEXIST. Wm335td (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.