Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Quist (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   merge to The Howling (film). King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Quist
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

No significant coverage in third-party sources to WP:verify notability. The sources barely link the character to the actor and describe a few plot details. According to the general notability guideline, sources need to provide significant coverage, "address the subject directly in detail" and provide "more than a trivial mention". The coverage falls drastically short of that standard. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Google Books shows plenty of non-trivial mentions. Per WP:BEFORE, I'd like the nom to explain how none of those books amount to significant coverage of the character.  I note that there seems to be a very low false positive rate for that name, so searching shouldn't be hard. Bottom line: Meets N, meets V, article could clearly be improved rather than deleted. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - (I ask the follwing while having not seen the movie myself) Why does Eddie get his own article? Is it because he was the main antagonist? A quick glace over the cast list showed that no one else in the movie seems to have their own article, yet he deserves one? Just curious how that worked out. - Bkid Talk/Contribs 08:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: The fictional character by himself does not meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone topic since most mentions in books or publications come from tertiary sources that mentions him mainly from a plot-only perspective without reception or significance in the real world. The article itself uses references about the film or tertiary sources, but no secondary sources making analytic or evaluative claims about him are provided, at best only a tertiary source of archetypes in horror films. Even with a quick search engine test, I do not see convincing evidence that the individual fictional character has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to justify a stand-alone article about him. Jfgslo (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to the movie's page. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to The Howling (film). I agree with User:Jfgslo and the nominator the very search results User:Jclemens brings are trivial mentions with not enough "analytic or evaluative claims" to justify inclusion of the character in an encyclopedia. I'd further like to know why a trusted servant of the pedia like Jclemens has decided to use such casual and biting criticism of the nominator's thinking in disagreement in this process (no pun intended). I'll take the liberty of thoroughly addressing that named arbitrators's concerns: a clickthrough of the gbooks search Jclemens includes leads to 23 hits. Of those ghits, fully six are books created directly from Wikipedia content, so those don't count . We're down to 17. Four of the remaining links predate the release of the film and clearly don't refer to this subject in any way . Now we have 13. Two are unavailable for viewing so we can't use those to determine WP:BEFORE, since hits by themselves don't count . Now 11. With few exceptions, the rest are either mentions during plot summaries or mere listings of the character in a film description . In a few cases of the previously listed links, both descriptors apply. These two links refer to makeup for the actor to portray the role, not about the character  . None of the sources directly address the character, NONE. Now let's do our own reasonable search. gScholar is no help, a mere review of the movie. gEverything hits give us a large number of youtube hits, a number of blogs, mostly dealing with prosthetic and masks. Plus we have the normal range of Wikipedia imitators and mirrors. Yahoo doesn't find us anything Google didn't find, neither does Bing. In my opinion, a reasonable search for sources as suggested by WP:BEFORE gives us EVERY reason to nominate this page for deletion. If User:Jclemens really feels strongly, he might try applying Rescue tag so that others can conduct a search, possibly of offline sources (which may indeed exist). Without those sources, clear case for deletion, and a pretty good case the light Jclemens tried to bring to bear didn't shine too brightly. The nominator certainly didn't deserve a mild dressing-down by an arbitrator simply because he disagreed with a reasonable case for deletion. BusterD (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator I would support a merge if it will produce a consensus. Policy still warrants deletion considering the lack of sources. But some sort of re-organization would be the next best thing. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2011 (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.