Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ezekiel "Easy" Rawlins

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekiel "Easy" Rawlins[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article doesn't appear to have a sufficient amount of general real-world information. Most of this article is just 16 sections of fictional in-universe information. Grapesoda22 (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question The nomination only talks about the current status of the article, which is not the decisive critereon for deletion according to WP:ARTN. So was the required WP:BEFORE search done, and if so what was the result seeing that e.g. Google Books and Google Scholar searches provide a lot of hits? Daranios (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added some information from a 1995 article in The Independent, in addition to the refs already present from CNN, The New York Times and The Hollywood Reporter. Of the Google Scholar listings that Daranios mentions, this one seems especially strong — an 11-page article about the character in The Kenyon Review. I agree that the article definitely needs improvement, but AfD is not cleanup. Enough sources exist (see WP:NEXIST) for this subject to be notable. Toughpigs (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are enough sources discussing the character himself that a reception/analysis/etc section could easily be developed that would allow it to pass the WP:GNG on his own merits. On top of that, this article is essentially also functioning as our article on the book series as a whole, which is an unquestionably notable book series. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources found which establish notability of this topic. Having not received an answer I have to assume the nomination is flawed because it ignores the WP:ARTN policy and persumably skipped WP:BEFORE. Daranios (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per Toughpigs's findings. TLA^tlak 02:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "Easy Rawlins" books are probably better known than Walter Mosley himself. Per Rorshacma above, our article essentially covers the entire series. The character is also widely discussed in coverage of the 1995 film version of Devil in a Blue Dress. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2024 (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.