Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloria Stivic (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   keep. Cirt (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gloria Stivic
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability not established through secondary sources. ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   —ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject of numerous third party interpretations;, , , and many more. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Fee Fie Foe Fum, not only All in the Family, but the spinoff show Gloria was reasonably successful too. A lack of RS's would be scarcely believable, and is clearly not true.John Z (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to the article as required by the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that we should delete because even though sources exist (listed above) they aren't in the article or are you disagreeing with the sources as being reliable?
 * Those aren't sources, they're Google Books searches. I would expect to see specific references to non-trivial coverage in specific books or (better) news websites. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per sources supplied above. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep central character in an esp. notable TV show, starring character of Gloria (TV series). Often parodied. The character is independently notable. JJL (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep core character on one of the most notable TVshows of all time. Subject of a spin-off series, multiple Emmy wins.  Ridiculous nomination. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Lack of sources in the article is reason for cleanup, not deletion. Lack of sources existing would be a reason for deletion, but noone appears to be alleging that such is the case here. Jclemens (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I was surprised to find an article that was not more fully developed. One of the key characters in a series that was one of TV's top rated. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable television character of the 1970s and 1980s, major and ongoing character in one of the most influential TV series ever produced for American TV. Plenty of third-party works out there about the TV show and the characters within. I am very disturbed at the attempt being made here to invalidate Google Books as a resource considering the purpose of Google Books is to make printed texts available online. This is the first time I have ever heard of Google Books being questioned! 23skidoo (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Create List of All in the Family characters and merge there. And merge the even less notable Stephanie Mills (All in the Family) to that list too. —Angr 05:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Fee Fie Foe Fum has demonstrated that sourcing does exist to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable sources exists to establish notability and article. That it's not currently sourced is a fixable issue. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:40, 10 October 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.