Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finbarr Saunders

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. My personal inclination is that the character is probably notable, but there's clearly no consensus here. Actually adding the sources found during th AfD would be an idea though, or else no doubt we'll just be here again. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finbarr Saunders

edit
Finbarr Saunders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, unsourced since forever, redirect undone for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Iconic character in British culture - seminal, some would say. Sources here, here, here, here - not to mention less reliable but relevant sources like this, this, this, this... etc. Of course, I'm not suggesting that all those sources are reliable in WP terms, but I do suggest that they show an importance of Viz to a large part of British culture, in a way that is unlikely to be fully appreciated elsewhere. The closest parallel is probably Mad magazine in the 50s and 60s (but much ruder). This and the other Viz-related articles need to be improved, but not deleted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are there, and can be added by anyone. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an undiscussed blanking by an editor who's already at RFC/U over excessive deletions, and was blocked yesterday for abuse of MfD. It was also part of a run of 50+ blankings within half an hour, a timescale that allows no credible time for any assessment of each article. They've now abandoned AfD, Prod, CSD and have resorted to simply blanking articles without any attempt at consensus-based discussion. If you wish to see why the redirect was "undone for no reason", then read the additions at RFC/U.
Within their indecent hurry, they presumably missed the OED citation that was already here.
As to whether it's a notable article, then Viz is a comic that has run since the mid-80s. Many recent characters are indeed a stretch to believe their notability. However some of them (most of which appeared in the first dozen issues of Viz) have since entered UK popular culture, either by name or catchphrase. This is just one of those seminal (fnarr, fnarr) characters. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
fnarr fnarr.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of sources out there for this topic but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a search engine and so citations are only required for especially controversial points. And AFD is not cleanup as our policy is to maintain articles in mainspace where they may be worked on as and when needed. If the nominator can't be bothered to add citations then he should not expect anyone else to do so. Warden (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Certainly comic strip characters can be notable: here's a sourced example. So how about this one? Ghmyrtle: Sources here, here, here, here. I looked at each one. Two don't display anything about the character (because I'm at the other end of Eurasia?); two others barely mention him. I don't even know what it means for a character to be "iconic" or "seminal" (as claimed above), but the gist seems to be that he's notable. I'm very willing to believe that he is. Well, let's see some evidence for the claim. ¶ Above: The sources are there, and can be added by anyone. Then enough of them to demonstrate that the article merits retention can surely be added by a group of people who think that the article is worth retaining. (As for the OED link, it says very little indeed, perhaps nothing, about the character.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being cited by the O.E.D. is clear evidence of notability outside of the world of comics.TheLongTone (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge and redirect to List of Viz comic strips. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Style guide states NOTE: It is advisable to read WP:N and WP:GNG first and try to see if the character is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. -- Trevj (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Finbarr_Saunders&oldid=1070413967"