Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horned King


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Horned King

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Completely unreferenced, mostly in-universe, no elaboration of real-world notability to speak of. Closedmouth (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - since when the quality of an article is a reason to delete it? The Horned King is of course a notable character, even the Disney version alone is notable, appearing in more media than The Black Cauldron. -- LoЯd   ۞pεth  01:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * G10, G11, and G12 are all speedy deletion requirements that are only used based on the quality of an article. Not saying any of them apply here, but we definitely do take that [article content] into consideration sometimes. Killiondude (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep There is lots of coverage of this character in numerous sources. For example, the Prydain companion has several pages devoted specifically to it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag for cleanup. The subject being covered in multiple reliable sources and in multiple books independent of the subject, allows a resonable presumption of real-world notability though its coverage in real-world sources. Yes, the article needs sourcing... but that current lack is a surmountable issue that does not require deletion, only improvement.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:41, 1 May 2010 (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.