Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Quist


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Quist

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

This character does not establish notability independent of The Howling (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 of the article, so the coverage in the main article is enough detail. TTN (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Redirect to The Howling (film) and merge heavily condensed plot details as per WP:FICT. Also the name itself makes for a reasonable redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 00:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Notability has not been established - Boston (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss the redirect or merge elsewhere. as usual. Establishing notability is not necessary for a merge or a redirect. Unless one can show why they arent suitable, one shouldnt even propose for deletion.. DGG (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing to merge, since it's not referenced. No references, no notability, no verifiability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Any reliable credit listing that is not IMDB would show this is verifiable. Not being verified is not a valid reason for deletion, not being verifiable after trying is. - Mgm|(talk) 11:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete & Redirect: One time character in a film that showed me a vagina for the first time, just thought everyone would like to know that ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge and redirect. Laurent paris (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because although some of the references provided are offline and therefore can't be appraised in the same way an online reference can, an effort is being made to demonstrate notability and I don't doubt more references could be found. I do encourage the article's current "rescuer" to redouble efforts to this end. Boston (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no independent notability. Eusebeus (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep due to coverage in reliable secondary sources some of which even dicuss the character from an analyitical perspective thereby establishing notability. Article now referenced and improved since nomination.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no indication that any of the references provided are non-trivial. The existence of a potential redirect target does not make AfD verboten, no matter how many times that argument is advanced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Boston and A Nobody (who said it best...and first). Ecoleetage (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Moderately well sourced in third party sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep too big to merge, notable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 11 December 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.