Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harley Warren


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Harley Warren

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The article was deprodded with no rationale despite my request to leave one. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: I added three sources to the article, which each contain at least a page and a half of coverage specifically about Harley Warren :
 * The Dream World of H.P. Lovecraft: His Life, His Demons, His Universe by Donald Tyson, Llewellyn Worldwide (2010)
 * The Complete H.P. Lovecraft Filmography by Charles P. Mitchell, Greenwood Press (2001)
 * Lovecraft: Disturbing the Universe by Donald R. Burleson, University Press of Kentucky (2014)
 * This third source in particular analyzes the symbolic meaning of Warren's name, character and role in the story, saying, among other things, that "Harley Warren is a semantically crowded repository of textuality". I can't imagine why someone would want to delete an article about a semantically crowded repository of textuality. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the sources. The third one you mention does not discuss the subject much outside a few sentences - it seems to discuss some grammatical or sementiic issues related to the plot of the work he appears in (The Statement of Randolph Carter), and it overall suggests we may be better of merging and redirecting this. The two other sources you link seem to contain no analysis outside of a plot summary and mentioning which work(s) the subject appeared it. I don't think this is enough to warrant having a stand-alone article on him, but I am happy to agree this could be soft deleted through a merge and redirect. The readers would be better served seeing few referenced sentences about the subject in the article about the short story he is mainly featured in, but having a dedicated article to such a footnote character seems neither justified in light of our policies on notability, nor actually helpful to the reader. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect, I think that you misunderstand the analysis in Lovecraft: Disturbing the Universe. The "grammatical or semantic issues" that you reference is a textual analysis using post-structuralist literary theory. It's difficult to understand if you don't have a solid grounding in literary theory. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not my field of expertise, but too often such language as seen in the source is IMHO used to mask issues you can read more about at Grievance studies affair or Sokal affair (however, I am not saying this particular research is bogus, I am just making a comment about my view of this type of writing in general). Anyway, I don't dispute that the source is reliable (since it passed a peer review at the University Press of Kentucky), although the author, Donald R. Burleson, is also described as an UFOlogist... My points is that the source does not discuss the subject in depth, it discusses the linguistic structure or such of the accompanying text, and the discussion of the subject that is not related to a plot summary here is IMHO passing and not in-depth. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Finding that the character has been played by John Rhys-Davies will do for me and Toughpigs' further findings seem ample too. Applicable policies include WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, Donald Tyson is not a reliable source. I replaced him with S. T. Joshi. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 21:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Has coverage in reliable sources.★Trekker (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2020 (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.