Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Bar Sinister


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Simon Bar Sinister

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Redirect to List of Underdog characters. It is true that AfD is not cleanup, but the fact remains that there are no verifiable secondary sources present, and it says on that itty-bitty template on top of the article that "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." MuZemike ( talk ) 02:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  treelo  radda  14:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  treelo  radda  14:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Principal villain in very important childrens series--at the very least redirect to section in main article. I continue to think it generally inappropriate to nominate for deletion when redirection is possible. It would be helpful if the nomination indicated with specific reference to the article why considered unsuitable for redirection. DGG (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Most notable villain in a notable TV cartoon series and its film adaptation. Besides, there's no need to fear... Oops, wrong character. Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge as proposed above to a character's page. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Although not as well-known to a generation that didn't grow up watching Underdog, he was the chief nemesis on that show. Since there appears to be a policy that major characters in notable television shows are themselves notable, he would pass under that standard.  Mandsford (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. As the main villain, it probably have some notability outside the show. Right now I don't see any but hopefully someone can add some references or something like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to List of Underdog characters. No sources... wreaks of WP:OR, a lot of fluff.  Gtstricky Talk or C 21:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Google book search shows several mentions of him, such as how his voice sounded , evil devices he employed  ,  , and his frequent appearance in the show  . Google News Archive  has several articles which mention him: "Dinklage gets evil for Dis' 'Underdog'" Pay-Per-View - Hollywood Reporter - Factiva, from Dow Jones - Mar 31, 2006: "Simon Bar Sinister was one of the show's recurring villains and, unbeknown to the tykes watching the show, his last name slyly translated to "Evil Bastard." Bar Sinister has the status of a cultural icon, such that he gets mentioned without mention of the cartoon show he was part of: "IDOLATRY; AMERICAN IDOL MANUFACTURES THE STARS WE LOVE - OR LOVE TO...- Winston-Salem Journal - Factiva, from Dow Jones - Aug 19, 2004: "One judge, Simon Cowell, has settled into the villainous Simon Bar Sinister role of The Man You Love To Hate.." General acknowledgement of persistence as a cultural icon, and lots of brief mentions of his role ion the show, may add up to notability. Edison (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I must be missing something. There are no sources to support any facts in this article except that he was the villain in the series. If you removed all the unsourced WP:OR you are left with one sentence and at that point he can be included in the List of Underdog characters. We still do require sources to back up facts right?  Gtstricky Talk or C 23:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, perhaps you may be missing something. There is a difference between the (acceptable) usage of primary sources, and "original research". (Which is clarified at WP:OR). - jc37 23:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - AfD is not cleanup. If there is WP:OR in the article (rather than some information from primary sources), then clean that up, don't delete. - jc37 23:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to merge to the same article listed above. I want to add that this may fit better in the corresponding list article after the sources above can create a more concise coverage of the subject. MuZemike  ( talk ) 03:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep major antagonist in a well-known animated series. I really would advise against boilerplate noms like this one. JuJube (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination - no demonstration has been made to disprove any of the points advanced that this "does not establish notability independent of its series; has no coverage in reliable third party sources, and is anything other than unnecessary plot summary and original research. Boilerplate keep votes that cannot be bothered to assess the article on its encyclopedic merits and according to our policies and guidelines should simply be discarded. Eusebeus (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't think you know what "boilerplate" means. JuJube (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The "no coverage " claim is not in accord with references provided above. Edison (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Book sourcing exists, although a claim could be made that those sources are trivial. Web sources are not promising, but at least the text string sees a lot of hits.  GNews sources exist, with the same caveat as regards the book sources.  Scholar hits come up for the text string, but I don't know about applicability. Protonk (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Major villian in notable series, numerous sources have been found by other editors. Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2008 (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.