Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Lyle

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 redirect to Candyman (1992 film). The problem with the later "keep" votes is that they only have a bare assertion of notability. A redirect sounds like a suitable compromise, and can always be reversed and expanded into a full article at a later date. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Lyle

[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)

Cannon see why this character is notable; only question for me is which is the proper redirect target, the story or the film. The article is almost all plot summary; the other content is trivial and belongs in the article on the film. TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Just giving a page a single look and deciding that you don't think it's notable is not a good way for Wikipedia to operate. Its getting rather tiresome for this to be the norm on AFD on fictional characters it seems. This character has been the subject of analysis in several literary works such as Apocalyptic Dread: American Film at the Turn of the Millennium, Horror Films of the 1990s, Shocking Cinema of the Seventies, Clive Barker: The Dark Fantastic, Tactics of Hope: The Public Turn in English Composition, Masters of Evil: A Viewer's Guide to Cinematic Archvillains, Monstrous Adaptations: Generic and Thematic Mutations in Horror Film, Architecture + Film II, Imagining the modern city, etc.★Trekker (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or merge into Candyman (1992 film). The real question is, does she transcend the works she appeared in? I'll count the film and the short story as one combined work (the film was based on a short story), which would make her a one-off character, who can be fully discussed in Candyman (1992 film) until that hits size limits to allow for WP:SPINOUTs. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I slightly changed my !vote: I see this article just got started, so I also see WP:DRAFTIFY as an alternative, allowing User:*Treker to demonstrate that it would pass as a SPINOUT, if properly developed. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just want to point out here that I am not the actual creator of the article, I simply made the redirect that was turned into the current article by another editor. I feel like the actual creator should be notified as well.★Trekker (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to article on work they appear in. Not indepdently notable and work is not so heavily covered that a content fork is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current reception section does not suggest the analysis, if any, has been in-depth. I could change my vote if Trekker provides more information on the sources he mentions (such as how in-depth is the analysis - sentence, five, paragraph, chapter, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Basing your deletion vote on how an article currently looks as opossed to the sources you can look trought is not how it should be done.★Trekker (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article should be improved, the character is notable, but the current state of the article doesn't reflect that. It simply just needs some modification to be able to stay on the site. Treker found some more sources, those should be implemented ASAP. SeanTheYeti452

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the page on the movie Candyman (1992 film). PenulisHantu (talk)
Redirect - The current page is too trivial. The main article should reach such a state where information on the character is given too much weight and needs to be split out. Otherwise, this is just an unnecessary duplication of information. TTN (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to encourage one more round of participation by the community. Seems people have thoughts all over the board - what about you?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep Clearly notable character. The article could be expanded. Dimadick (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Notable. Bobherry Talk Edits 04:44, 1 February 2020 (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.