Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverend Henry Kane (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   delete. The "delete" arguments effectively refute the "keep" arguments; no prejudice against recreation if non-trivial sources are actually found. I'll go ahead and redirect to Poltergeist (film series) as a possible search term. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverend Henry Kane
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Two years after the previous AFD, there remain no reliable sources that indicate any independent notability for this fictional character. Also fails WP:PLOT as the article is nothing much beyond a plot summary. Otto4711 (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable character from different films, and which was referenced by others in their media.  D r e a m Focus  19:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not enough simply to say that the character is notable. Reliable sources that substantively discuss the character are required to establish notability. I do not know what "referenced by others in their media" means. Otto4711 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Dream Focus has it right. A notable character from the Poltergist trilogy, often referenced in other media, and even spoofed in other projects. Sources definitely available... and yes, I used proper WP:AFTER, saw a number of decent sources, and added a few before coming here to opine. Discussions about article style belong on its talk page per WP:DEL and WP:ATD, and not at AfD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You must be joking. Source 1 is one sentence out of a 332 page book. Source two is from a 726 page book that covers every film from 1986. Source 3 is a paragraph and a picture. Source 4 is a two-paragraph review of the film which does not discuss the character in any significant fashion. Source 5 is pay-per-view but the preview does not mention the character at all. Source 6 is one sentence from an entertainment Q&A column. None of these come anywhere near meeting the requirement of WP:N which calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Simply being mentioned in a book or a newspaper story does not meet the threshold for notability. Otto4711 (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It is enough, I think, to be a central character in major films.   As is obvious, views   differ on this, and it is clear there is no generally accepted consensus; the existing guidelines only persist because there is no agreement on what to change them to. Obviously, Otto and I and the others on each side can assert indefinitely that our own positions ought to be right, and will until there is finally an accepted compromise. I see however that MQS has found some sources, and there are probably more; the films were extensively reviewed & the director is much written about, so it is to be expected that the character would be discussed. Otto, did you yourself search before niominating, as advised by WP:BEFORE? DGG (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I searched for sources. And no, it is not enough that the character is one that is central to a film or even two films because the notability of the films is not inherited by every fictional character or aspect of the films. The "accepted compromise" is already spelled out quite clearly at WP:N: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The standard is "reliable sources that significantly cover the topic", not "oh, I'm sure there must be sources out there somewhere! It is quite frankly shameful that an administrator is advocating keeping an article based on his assumption that sources exist. Otto4711 (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets all requirements for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are a lot of "Well, it's notable"s above, but they don't address the fact that all of this coverage is completely glancing Google fishing. We don't write an encyclopedia by cobbling together a few trivial factoids from published sources then using plot summary and original research to fill in the gaps. Nobody has treated this as a separate subject, so neither should we. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources have significant coverage that addresses this character to satisfy WP:GNG. It would be nice if people commenting saying keep could actually try and demonstrate how the sources provided meet wikipedia guidelines. Until there is some sort of agreement regarding these characters we can only refer to WP:N. Quantpole (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. There's a bit of stuff that's not just plot re-hashing, but not enough to justify an individual article. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (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.