Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Vidicon


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Saint Vidicon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable fictional saint from a book we've no article on. Info box reads like a hoax; such lulz. delete. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 12:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 12:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 12:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Preserve If the book itself had an article, it should have been deleted as an advertisement for pulp fiction; however, the character is relevant. St. Vidicon transcends the book and the author, providing relief, in the form of humor, to the multitude at the mercy of the gremlins. 10 August 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelley Reid (talk • contribs)
 * So, because in your opinion even though an article for the book itself should be/have been deleted the character "transcends the book and the author" you feel that's good enough a reason to keep? I don't follow, eitherway I doubt your attestation to the relevance of the character is good enough a reason to keep, gremlins be damned. treelo  radda  19:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Lesse, less than 100 edits since creation in 2006, only two mainspace articles link to it, one of which is the author's article and the other a throwaway mention in a "X in popular culture" section. I don't see much in the way of notability given the book the character comes from doesn't even have an article, bin it. treelo  radda  13:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Found a review on book in SFRevu and one by Harriet Klausner. Also its page on LibraryThing and Scifan.  Google Book link too.  Cover page also seems to suggest that Analog Science Fiction and Fact might have reveiwed the book, but unable to find link.  Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD isn't about the book; it's about the character. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, my bad. Links to the novel go here though.  Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, because the book itself doesn't seem to be notable per Notability:Books. Any material about it should be added to the author's article. The main character of a non-notable book is non-notable. GreetingsEarthling (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: A non-notable character in a book without an article. Joe Chill (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm really sorry there's not a notability point for outright humor on Wikipedia. We take this stuff much too seriously. While this AfD is about the article for the character Saint Vidicon it appears some contributors are also addressing notability for the book meaning it may not be too much topic drift to discuss here if the book is notable enough to merit a move of this article to Saint Vidicon to the Rescue. The book was reviewed by in the July-August 2005 issue of Analog Science Fiction and Fact. One concern is that it is one one of three reviews on page 233 meaning it's likely one to three paragraphs leaving little room for critical commentary if that review includes a plot summary. The web-reviews found by Zombie Hunter Smurf focus on plot summary meaning the sufficient critical commentary test on WP:BK is unlikely to have been met. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 21:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Move and rescope to Saint Vidicon to the Rescue. It looks like there is may be enough notability for an article about the book itself. Lady  of  Shalott  20:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Warlock of Gramarye or do what User:LadyofShalott has suggested. It should certainly not survive as it is.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The target that I suggested (looking at the article) is actually a link to the author, so that perhaps he should be the merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I created the article not knowing whether or not Saint Vidicon to the Rescue itself would be considered notable, but had assumed that the repeated references in the rest of Stansheff's work and the external urban legend would qualify the character as notable.  Overall, I have no problem preserving some of the information via merging.  As the article creator, though, I would prefer to abstain from the formal voting here.  --KNHaw (talk)  18:00, 14 August 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.