Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jame Gumb (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 and rename. v/r - TP 17:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Jame Gumb
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article was merged and re-directed on 25 October 2004 following result of first deletion discussion. Article was re-created 13 August 2008.

The character is not independently notable outside of the book/film, and the three references do not feature criteria that help meet WP:GNG. The Salon.com reference in the article does not mention Jame Gumb. The reference to crimelibrary.com mentions Ed Gein and Ted Bundy as being similar to Jame Gumb in their M.O., but these two small paragraphs from one single source do not likely meet "significant coverage".  Sottolacqua  (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep because the character appears independently notable. For example, Rhetoric Society Quarterly has this article, and Google Scholar Search results show examples like "Skinflick: Posthuman Gender in Jonathan Demme's The Silence of the Lambs" in Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media, "The Transvestite as Monster: Gender Horror in The Silence of the Lambs and Psycho" in Journal of Popular Film and Television, and so forth. Obviously coverage of the character involves coverage of the book or the film, but in cases where the coverage is especially focused on the character (as in not just mentioned as part of a reviewer's rundown of the plot), a stand-alone character article is warranted. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * These |transsexual|transvestite&oq=%22buffalo+bill%22+%22silence+of+the+lambs%22+transgender|transsexual|transvestite&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3056l6145l0l6538l25l10l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0 Google Book Search results also show how well-covered the character is especially regarding his gender identity. The book and the film cover a wide range of themes such as feminism and horror (not to mention Hannibal himself), so it seems that a character article is particularly useful for focusing on Buffalo Bill and his gender identity. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Silence of the Lambs. I see no reason at all that this needs its own article. While there is no specific notability criteria for fictional characters, I happen to agree that this does fail WP:GNG as that, while I'm sure that the information therein is reliable, it does not have the necessary source material to back it up and lacks the significant coverage necessary to make an article. Trusilver  03:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Changing position to Keep and Move to Buffalo Bill (character) with a redirect on the current page per Erik's suggestion below. The added section and references tip the scales (as far as I'm concerned). I see enough notable content and verifiable sources now to easily satisfy notability requirements. Kudos to Erik for his work on the article.  Trusilver  22:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The general notability guideline is that a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. There are both Google Scholar Search results and Google Book Search results that cover the fictional character and his gender identity. With these sources covering the character directly in detail, why can there not be an article about him? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 04:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's sources that directly cover Pokemon #238 in detail. Do I think that that it's ridiculous that a tangential fictional character has it's own article? You bet. Such is the case here as well. Trusilver  06:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Pokemon article should be evaluated on its own merits. Its sources, which are reception-based, are very different from this topic's sources, which are academic in nature. Buffalo Bill is not a tangential fictional character either; the beginning of Yvonne Tasker's BFI Modern Classics book about the film says, "The Silence of the Lambs centres on the search for a serial killer, known only as 'Buffalo Bill', who abducts young women seemingly at random." The sources discuss his gender identity in particular. Why do you think all the coverage focused on him can't be used in this article? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect, at least for now. The "article" is little more than plot details written up as a fictional biography. Sourced analysis that exceeds the scope of the main article could probably be used to create a proper article, but the current content isn't that by any stretch of the imagination (except, apparently, Erik's). Wikipedia mainspace pages should never serve as "placeholders" for proper articles. Either there is a proper article, or there isn't -- and in that case, the page should be deleted or merged. --213.168.108.201 (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article needs to have one of these reasons for deletion. In addition, WP:BEFORE says, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Basically, if an article is messy but the topic valid, then we should keep the article. We should make an effort to reduce the in-universe information, but if you think that the coverage exists to have a hypothetical article about this character, then we should keep the article at least as a stub. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We should merge and redirect for now, based on the state of the page. Personally, I wouldn't have nominated the page for deletion and instead boldly redirected it, incorporating what little valuable information there is into the book's main article. If and when someone takes the time to write a proper article, that material could be spun off from the main article. Until then, redirect. Period. --195.14.223.218 (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep independent based on the length of the article and the independent references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment—The length of the article is not a factor used in determining whether this meets WP:GNG. The three references listed aren't applicable to most of the content in the article. Two references relate to which real-life individuals the character is based upon. The other is a parental guide about the film content, which mentions the character briefly, but is more related to the graphic content of the film.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I concur. The majority of the article is unreferenced. The references are (in two cases) irrelevant to the article and, (in the third) supply only two paragraphs that are not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trusilver (talk • contribs) 16:55, September 13, 2011
 * Comment: I added an "Analysis" section to the article that uses three references that I accessed through Google Books Search and Amazon.com. There is more coverage to be found in academic journals. I ask everyone to review the section and the results that I posted above. If the article is kept, I suggest moving the article to Buffalo Bill (character) as the character is most commonly known by "Buffalo Bill" and not "Jame Gumb". Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:00, 13 September 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.