Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermes Conrad


 * 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. v/r - TP 03:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hermes Conrad

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails significant coverage of WP:GNG C T J F 8 3  07:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a primary fictional character in a prominent U.S. television series ("Futurama"). Such characters are routinely considered as notable. The article very definitely has sourcing problems and needs a lot of work, but that does not affect the subject's notability. — Michael J 08:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  Logan Talk Contributions 12:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Logan Talk Contributions 12:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a primary character in the series, not simply a recurring character. That said, tag for needing better references.  Dennis Brown (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a weak reason these 2 are part of the main family of The Cleveland Show Articles for deletion/Rallo Tubbs and Articles for deletion/Donna Tubbs (2nd nomination)
 * And these 2 are pretty main characters, I'd say more of a main character then Hermes: Articles for deletion/Lester Krinklesac and Articles for deletion/Tim the Bear
 * Neither of you 2 are giving policy/guideline based reasons to keep C T J F 8 3  17:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply It would be difficult to compare the relatively new The Cleveland Show to Futurama, and most people wouldn't try.  They are not in the same league when it comes to longevity or cultural impact, using any method of measuring, so this is an apples vs. oranges comparison.  Even if taken as equals, those AFDs failed and the articles instead became redirects.  If you were wanting the article to become a redirect, then you should not have taken it to AFD.  AFD is not a substitute for discussion on the talk page, and using it to get a redirect isn't proper.  See WP:BEFORE, which covers why you discuss changing on the talk page instead of going to Articles For Deletion.  That AFDs end in redirects is meaningless, as in this case you have chosen AFD as the first method, instead of the method of last resort.  You haven't commented once in the article talk page, and have a single trivial edit in the main article before nom'ing.  In this case, the character is more "notable" (even if not properly cited yet) than characters in the relatively new spin off, The Cleveland Show. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you basing that on? A Guess? You say he is notable, I want evidence, in 3rd party reliable sources that shows he passes WP:GNG. Your reasoning is, he is a main character therefore he must be notable, while providing no evidence of such. C T J F 8 3  18:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep He is a main character in a major television show, although the article needs to be better referenced. --TheRico152 (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: This interview with voice actor Phil LaMarr might be a good starting point . He speaks some on how the character was developed. — Michael J 04:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sweet honey bee of AfD!  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources are definitely out there, I have no doubt - for such a central character of (a beloved show of mine :D) Futurama it would be insane if there weren't. Look on GoogleBooks, Scholar and News. Watch ComicCon interviews etc. It's just a case of digging IMO. Same with the other 2.--Coin945 (talk) 02:44, 16 December 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.