Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Thorn

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. v/r - T P 15:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Thorn[edit]

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

Almost entirely unsourced article that fails fails WP:GNG and is barely more than plot details from each of the films. Only source included is related to entomology of the name "Damien". Sottolacqua (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did you try to find sources outside of Wikipedia about the character? Per WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD," meaning the topic should not be judged by the current state of the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing remotely useful comes up in the first four pages of a Google search. There's nothing to fix—the article is regurgitation of content from other WP articles, and the article subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about Google News Search or Google Books Search? In the latter, one source discusses the character as one of the "Deformed and Destructive Beings" (the title of the book), and this source follows Damien's Jungian development throughout the films. Yet another analyzes his character as the film's events happen around him. We should not have a lot of in-universe information in the article and should trim it, but there seems to be sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article. What do you think? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source is barely more than a minor plot synopsis of the character from the film. The few lines are more geared toward Gregory Peck and his characterization of Robert Thorn. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the character appears to meet the general notability guideline. I included two references, and the Iaccino reference in particular has an abundance of coverage about the character throughout the films (though not the remake, having been published before it). Additional results in Google Books Search are available to be used. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Erik's analysis and improvements. As they can be fixed through regular editing, issues shown as addressable are rarely cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reliable sources added to the article, which establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nomination's basis is upon content within the article, rather than a search for reliable sources. There's no mention in the nomination regarding stated prerequisite searches required per WP:BEFORE policies being undertaken by the nominator prior to nomination. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2011 (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.