Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilbert Blythe


 * 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. Clear consensus again driven by RebeccaGreen's findings. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Gilbert Blythe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of secondary sources Shaneymike (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I would just redirect this Anne of Green Gables. Shaneymike (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep WP:NEXIST: 'Why We Loved Gilbert Blythe', The New Yorker ; 'Move over, sexy beasts, and make way for the real literary hero, Gilbert Blythe', The Guardian ; 'Anne of Green Gables ‘Gilbert Blythe’ actor Jonathan Crombie dead at 48', News.com.au with quotes "Jonathan Crombie will always be my Gilber", "My very first love was Gilbert Blythe"; 'Gilbert Blythe lives on through Anne of Green Gables internet fandoms' CBC, which describes the amount of Gilbert Blythe fan art and fan fiction available; 'The Charlottetown Festival announces the next Gilbert Blythe' ; etc. How about doing WP:BEFORE? RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Secondary sources exist that focus on the character. However, the article takes an in-universe perspective and would probably benefit from TNT and redirect, without prejudice to a later recreation based on RS. Catrìona (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per RebeccaGreen. Surprised this was re-listed after her substantial response. FOARP (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Stuff like this deletion is why I don't donate to Wikipedia. 170.232.224.10 (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

My other area of concern, and I apologize for not mentioning it earlier, is that it appears to be written from an in-universe perspective like Catrìona said. If it stays, fine, but I think it ought to be edited so that it is less in-universe, and I would add some sort of reception headline to help establish notability. Shaneymike (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep given the sources provided above. Aoba47 (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Not sure how this is not a secondary source. Shashank5988 (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2019 (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.