Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freddy Lounds


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Complex / Rational 21:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Freddy Lounds

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Sources in the article are either primary or do not prove the character's notability, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to Hannibal Lecter (franchise) (perhaps not the best redirect target, but I can only think of that). Spinixster  (chat!)  02:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "Noir tropes appear again concerning the character of Freddy Lounds, a sleazy journalist that's too good for the trashy job he's doing, Lounds is burned by ambition and by desire for vindication in front of those colleagues that look down upon his tabloid-related work. Everything in the character of Lounds, from his disregard for truth masquerading as desire to serve the public, down to his stripper girl-friend, comes straight from the rain-soaked and neon-lighted alleys of a generic 1950s noir downtown, and Freddy Lounds is certainly the most traditional noir character in the novel."
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, Film,  and Television.  Spinixster   (chat!)  02:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, borderline speedy. This is ridiculous. I can not believe that the nominator has even looked at the article itself, much less the sources cited, which include multiple books in print providing reasonably lengthy analysis of this specific character, which has been presented in multiple forms, and in multiple media. BD2412  T 04:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is when I checked the books, the character is only mentioned mostly in plot summaries with not enough analysis on the character (not a scene the character was in) to prove notability. If you can prove that it does, that'd be appreciated. Spinixster   (chat!)  04:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no rule, nor would one make sense, that analysis of a character must somehow be divorced from the scenes the character is in. Even so, there is no reference to a particular scene in the passage:
 * BD2412 T 05:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that it's a very brief analysis. I checked the book, too, but there were only 2 parts that go in-depth about the character, and the other one is also brief. For safe measure, I'll re-review the other sources. Spinixster   (chat!)  07:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is enough an analysis for a secondary character in the franchise. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. There shouldn't be so many nominations for deletion at the same time. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per BD2412's thoughts above. CSK#3: The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided, emphasis mine (See also Articles for deletion/Jack Crawford (character) for my concerns about this set of 8 nominations in 7 minutes) &mdash;siro&chi;o 07:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect . No reception/analysis section, just a plot summary. No sources presented above. This fails GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 23:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to write such sections. AfD isn't cleanup. BD2412  T 00:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus, based on my experiences working with you, this article as it stands seems quite in line with what you generally seek in articles about fictional elements. In particular,
 * "Just a plot summary" is inaccurate here—the article has has tertiary summary of secondary analysis in the "Character overview" section.
 * Also with regards to the other part of your comment, if sufficient sources are present in the article, especially at the time the article is nominated for deletion, it's common not to present them again in the AfD for purposes of demonstrating GNG. Specifically, the first !vote on this discussion made it clear that sufficient sources were already present in the article.
 * &mdash;siro&chi;o 00:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Siroxo I see, I was misled by the badly named 'Character overview' section (I renamed it to 'Analysis' just now). Thank you for correcting me. While this is not stellar, I think it's ok to keep this. Consider my vote to have a weak qualifier for what it's worth. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added two reviews commenting on the character's appearance in different media in the series. Cheers! BD2412  T 01:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The character is clearly notable and the sources show he passes GNG. The addition of new sources strengthens this. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2023 (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.