Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Leaphorn

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!} 23:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Leaphorn

[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)

Single sourced, in-universe fictography w/ no showing of notability. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The nominator failed to provide the analysis of the "single source", which seems pretty solid - a book chapter that contains dedicated discussion of the character in question. The book chapter's focus on the character is evident in the very title of the chapter ("Tony Hillerman's Joe Leaphorn and Jim Chee"), although admittedly, the chapter title was not included in the reference in the article. Still, the nominator likewise gave no indication of carrying out WP:BEFORE, and if we have an academic, in-depth book chapter, the odds are decent this is notable and one more source can be found (and, surprise, suprise, a one second glance at GScholar results does indeed confirm that yes, he is almost certainly notable, appearing in titles of several works there). Per BEFORE, the nominator should carry out a search and tell us whether they found no other source, or why sources that appear in GScholar and like are inadequate, and why the current (very solid at first glance) is not sufficient. Lastly, a redirect would be much better here then outright deletion, given the existing source. Final note: assuming this is kept, the 90% plot summary that constituts the article should be summarized/shortened or just deleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Law, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single, source, not-notable, just really obsessive and lengthy. Yuchitown (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article definitely needs a ton more citations, Joe Leaphorn is an extremely famous fictional character whose notability is easily proved. I did a quick JSTOR search and pulled up 74 academic articles referencing the character (and there are even more popular news articles referencing Leaphorn). So yes, while the article needs a lot of work the subject is definitely notable.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NYT coverage from this year? Check. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2022 (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.