Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Sam


 * 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 redirect to Edward Thomas (locomotive). A fictional character being based on something from the real world does not contribute to meeting any notabililty threshold I am aware of. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Peter Sam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fictional character. Article is currently uncited, and I'm not finding any real coverage in reliable sources, just wikis, blogs, and sales sites. Google books just brings up the primary source materials themselves. I'm amazed at the quantity of Thomas the Tank Engine cruft there is. Hog Farm Bacon 02:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:V and WP:NFICTION, as well as WP:GNG. I guess it is time to prune the Thomas tTE cruft to reasonable level. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This is actually based on a real locomotive (see here, for example), and so the worst case would be merger into the article about that per WP:ATD. The nomination says nothing about this and so I doubt that the article was read or understood.  What we've got here is the usual WP:CRUFTCRUFT per WP:IDONTLIKEIT; WP:IGNORINGATD; WP:RUBBISH; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What we have here is a clear WP:GNG failure, even that source, while reliable, only gives Peter Sam a sentence. Andrew, keep !votes without demonstrating why the subject passes GNG is slightly disruptive.  If you can find multiple reliable sources that give substantial coverage, then there's a very good case for keeping.  I tried to do that and failed, maybe you'll have better luck than me. Hog Farm Bacon 13:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * - Further, what are we going to merge? The entire content of the article is uncited, and merging uncited content is generally frowned up.  Additionally, there are issues that the fictional biography of Peter Sam would be extremely undue at Edward Thomas (locomotive).  The relevant sentence, "The character Peter Sam in The Railway Series books by the Rev. W. Awdry is based on Edward Thomas.", is already at the article, and since there's no citation to merge, there's nothing to merge.  A redirect there would be acceptable, I guess, since this does seem to be the primary topic for Peter Sam, but I strongly oppose any merger, and I've seen no evidence that this meets the stand-alone notability guidelines. I have yet to be disproved on that. Hog Farm Bacon 14:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Edward Thomas (locomotive), alright, it's based of something in the real world. Quite a few fictional things are, does not make them notable. Coverage dug up is just a passing mention, and the sentence at the target is all that is needed. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Edward Thomas (locomotive). Merging is unnecessary as there is not a single piece of content currently in the article that is actually cited to a source.  The one piece of information brought up in a source in this AFD, that this fictional train was based off of the Edward Thomas, is already included in the target article.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:30, 20 August 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.