Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmett Brown


 * 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. Fairly apparent there's no support for using the deletion tool here. Courcelles 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Emmett Brown

 * – ( View AfD View log )

In-universe fictional biography that contains nothing more than plot elements from the film and trivial mentions of the character in other media. 100 Greatest Movie Characters is not "significant coverage", and this article fails to meet WP:GNG independent from the Back to the Future franchise. Google search produces fan wiki results and similar links. Google Books search produces nothing that would help meet WP:GNG.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The only problem worth deleting this or any similar articles (i.e. Marty McFly) for is lack of independent sources; long plot summaries can be trimmed. The NYT is generally a reliable source, though it's true that articles solely about this character are hard to find. This one has more to do with the character. Articles like this don't need deletion, they just need some work. §everal⇒|Times 21:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment—In addition to being from reliable third-party publications, sources also need to offer significant coverage of the topic per WP:GNG, which is provided in neither of these sources. Your first source is merely a review of the plot of the second film. It does not provide any detail that would qualify as significant coverage of Emmett Brown. Your second source is about Lloyd's career and mentions that his first on-screen kiss will be during his portrayal of Emmett Brown in the third film. There are mentions of "Emmett Brown," but one article in the NYT with mostly plot details from the film and one or two lines from the director about the character's backstory is not significant coverage of the the topic. This second article belongs linked in Christopher Lloyd's article (or is barely relevant in Back to the Future trilogy).  Sottolacqua  (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." A collection of non-trivial references should be sufficient to establish notability. §everal⇒|Times 15:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep since there appears to be significant coverage from reliable sources about this character. The key is to search for "Doc". There is an entire book about the original film, and there is a book of critical essays about the films. Other books I noticed mentioning "Doc" often were Hard Bodies: Hollywood Masculinity in the Reagan Era and Jungian Reflections within the Cinema. The character is a significant enough part of coverage about the films that in addition to the coverage being included in film articles, it can be re-formatted to provide a profile of the character in his own article. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 02:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The coverage in search results is mostly about the plot of the film. Mentioning the character in describing the plot, describing time travel, etc. does not meet "significant coverage" under WP:GNG. A Google book search on "Doc Brown" still does not produce results that fit significant coverage, with only one applicable result (WP:ONESOURCE).  Sottolacqua  (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your query lists the two books I mentioned. I previewed them and found analysis of the character that can be used. Not to mention the two books about the first film and the set of films; they're definitely not just plot summaries. Which result do you think is the only one applicable? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - That it is not perfect at the moment does not diminish the fact that it is a notable character, a notable search term and a notable article. The character has significant cultural impact alongside Marty McFly.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources have to exist for this guy. It's almost impossible for there not to be. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Saying "sources must exist" does not address the issue that this topic does not meet WP:GNG. You need to provide the actual sources that you believe to exist.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, here is a source which could replace #4(not sure of the reliability of mental_floss.) Also, the "100 Greatest Movie Characters" source does in fact display notability. I don't know why you would say it doesn't. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd argue that the "100 Greatest Movie Characters" would, almost without exception, be notable enough for stand-alone articles, and Doc Brown is one of the very best-known characters from 1980s cinema. As for the article being poorly-written and plottish, AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The "100 Greatest Movie Characters" article is not significant coverage that satisfies WP:GNG. The main argument that this article should be deleted is based upon the failure of the topic to meet WP:GNG, not that it needs cleaned up.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Snow keep With respect to the nom and his not agreeing, multiple available secondary sources DO show this character as being covered in a non-trivial fashion, and notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation in an article. Were this a real person, notability would not even be an issue. As we do not have a specific notability criteria set for fictional characters, we instead use existing guidelines and policies. The character is worthy of note and there is too much available information about this iconic character to include elsewhere. Such proper application of guideline and policy is why we have articles on such as Luke Skywalker and Captain Kirk that are separate from their series or actor articles. It's how it is done here.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak merge to List of characters in the Back to the Future films: I do not think that there is a large amount of reliable sources that give reception and significance in the real world fro the character as a stand-alone subject, so I believe that it does not meet general notability guideline satisfactorily and there is no concrete evidence that the article can be more than a plot-only description of a fictional work. As such, I believe that merging the character into List of characters in the Back to the Future films is a better solution than keeping the article until concrete evidence shows that the character deserves a stand-alone article, although, personally, I have the impression, not proof, that the character is notable by himself. Jfgslo (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: there's some sources beginning to appear here. The 100 greatest movie characters list does begin to WP:verify notability. Ideally there would be more sources to give a sense of weight, so we can tell what's important about this character instead of just piling on details. No prejudice against a merge if further sources aren't found. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:32, 10 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.