Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverend Henry Kane


 * 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 no consensus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs).

Reverend Henry Kane

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - normally I would just redirect this per WP:FICT but since the charatcer apparently figures in two different films it's unclear what redirect would be prefereable. If no proper redirect can be determined, delete the article since the character does not appear to be so notable as to warrant a separate article. Additionally, much of the article is plot summary which also falls afoul of WP:FICT. Otto4711 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this character is sufficiently ingrained in popular culture that having what amounts to a disambiguation page (for the different movies) with a little context is, I think, entirely appropriate. --Selket Talk 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into a Poltergeist article, preferably create a list of characters.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there a character list for this movie? Should be moved there. Only major characters are allowed there own page as per WP:FICT. Cannot justify own page based that the text is mainly on describing plot elements, a violation of WP:FICT--Dacium 07:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. If not kept (as per User:Selket), an appropriate redirect might be to Poltergeist (film series) or to a character list (however, I don't think one exists).  -- Black Falcon 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. No harm in having an article about a fictional character. The stated reason as "not notable" is not convincing, the character is notable, it is part of a major popular culture film series. -- Stbalbach 04:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No harm is not a valid argument for inclusion. Otto4711 17:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AADD (the main page that includes WP:NOHARM is an essay, not a guideline or policy. -- Black Falcon 20:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is an essay. An essay about arguments to avoid in trying to keep an article. "There's no harm in it" is an argument to avoid in trying to keep an article. What's your point? Otto4711 15:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that it is an essay reflecting the views of one or more editors, not a policy or guideline supported by consensus. You wrote "No harm is not a valid argument for inclusion".  Well, not valid according to whose authority?  It's just an essay--it would take me two minutes to create another essay according to which WP:NOHARM is the only legitimate argument that can be brought forth in an AfD.  According to WP:BASH (an existing essay), such arguments are perfectly "valid".  My point, in short, is: please don't cite essays as authoritative policies.  You may write that WP:NOHARM is not a good argument for inclusion or that it's not an informative or constructive argument for inclusion, but it's misleading to say that it's not a valid argument. -- Black Falcon 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per = No_original_research & does NOT include Reliable_sources for WP:Verifiability of content. --Parker007 18:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did NOT notify creator? --Parker007 18:06, 2 March 2007 (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.