Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom (Lost)

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 I mean, come on-it's a bloody GA. Cheers. I'^mperator 13:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (Lost)

If Eloise Hawking, Frank Lapidus, and Penny Widmore all got their articles deleted, so should Tom. He is of little relevance to the story and progress of the show, and there is no reason for him to have his own article when the three that I mentioned all got their articles deleted. Bibbly Bob (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC) (Broken AfD nomination fixed on behlf of Bibbly Bob. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Characters of Lost like the others. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I brought this article up to good article level, and feel there are plenty of real world information to justify it having an article. Eloise Hawking was deleted due to lack or real world info, Frank Lapidus was a copyright violation and Penny Widmore's real world information was to do with her relationship with Desmond Hume, so fitted fine into his article and didn't justify Penny having her own article. Tom's article has information on the development of the character and the reception of the character, verified to reliable sources. Sanders11 (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Sanders. The other articles were lacking information from reliable, third-party sources. This one has them. That's the main point not 'they were deleted let's delete these others'. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 16:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sanders11 - There are enough reliable sources for the article to pass Wikipedia:Notability. TheLeft orium 16:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated above. Rhino131 (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, important character in beginning era of show Tphi (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has substantial real-world, reliably sourced content and was promoted to GA because of that; its notability is clear. Gran² 19:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is referenced and Tom is a major reoccurring character in the series with an explored back story. The article seems relevant enough to warrant its existence. MegabyteModem (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient real-world information for a decent article. Karanacs (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2009 (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.