Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Lumbergh (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The result was Nomination withdrawn -- but consensus that article needs to be torn down and rewritten from scratch--Hnsampat (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Lumbergh[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is 100% plot summary and contains no real-world information or evidence of real-world notability, other than being the primary antagonist of a notable film. Previous AfD contained claims of notability that were never backed up or had WP:ILIKEIT-style arguments. Absolutely no need to have a separate article for this one character. Hnsampat (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As asserted by many in the first AfD, Lumbergh is an iconic character, and a real article could be written about him. He's become a stock character in management texts (see all the hits at Google Books [1] for examples) and he is invoked frequently in the media (see the many hits at Google News [2] for examples). However, I agree that the current article does very little of this, other than presenting a couple of quotes. This discussion reminds me of the recent AfD we had about a similarly plot-heavy article about Mr. Potter from It's a Wonderful Life, and I come out in a similar place--keep the article but strip it down and start rebuilding. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article currently has 2 non-trivial and 1 trivial independent RS references (one masquerading as an EL to NPR), and thus passes the GNG. No argument raised by the nominator requires deletion; any deficiency in the article can be remedied through the editing process. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note from nominator - I went ahead and significantly pared down the article per the discussion above. Based on the arguments presented thus far, I think I agree that perhaps drastic editing and sourcing is the best approach for this article and not deletion. I originally thought that this character was not notable enough to merit his own article, especially since all other Office Space character articles simply redirect to Office Space, but I think a good case can be made for keeping this article.

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.