Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Hill (King of the Hill)

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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Hill (King of the Hill)[edit]

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

Sources do not cover the subject in any detail. Article is pure original research and in-universe essay. Prior discussion at [1] seemed to indicate these should be sent individually, not as a group. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources such as Masculinity and Popular Television do discuss the character in detail and so we're good. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Andrew above. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 17:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. Subject is notable. Improve the article if necessary, don't delete it.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Close call. Certainly not a public icon on the scale of Bart Simpson, but the case can be made that this is a lesser icon worthy of encyclopedic coverage rather than a typical in-universe character. Needs massive editing, such characters should not be treated as "real" biographical subjects. I'm almost persuaded that WP:TNT is the best approach here... Carrite (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would work great, except that every time I try to remove the OR from a related article I get reverted (see the history of Dale Gribble). The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale deletion of 98% of the article is not the removal of OR material, but instead is WP:POINTy. It is clear that none of these articles will be deleted, so the best course is non-pointy work to improve them. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2014 (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.