Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson Leery

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-admin closure) Lourdes 14:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson Leery[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:DGG with the following rationale "central characters in major series are usually kept at afd.". Well, let's see if AfD will save this unferenced, 100% plot summary article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The deprodder was surely correct: notable in principle. There is a book on Dawson's Creek by a serious scholarly publisher.[1] The article does need serious work. --Colapeninsula (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Reliable sources undoubtedly exist for this character, in print as well as on the Wayback Machine. The in-universe tone of the article does require cleanup, but not WP:TNT. Newimpartial (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES] is not a valid argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source=following media in North America in the late 90s. :) Suggesting that Dawson is "not notable" would be like suggesting that Buffy Summers or Fox Mulder is not notable. It is a nonsense proposition to anyone who was there. Newimpartial (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's go with Google Scholar: Dawson's Creek-Sex and Scheduling in a Global Phenonemon, Joey Potter-Final Girl Next Door, Feels Like Home-Dawson’s Creek, Nostalgia, and the Young Adult Viewer, Living on Dawson’s Creek-Teen viewers, cultural convergence, and television overflow. None of those are about the character; all appear to be RS'es discussing him in non-trivial detail. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide an overview of how he is discussed, other than as part of plot summaries or trivial mentions in passing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plot summaries are transformative and useful for establishing notability, so no further justification is needed to support my assertion that the GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of reliable, secondary sources, please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 22:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Triptothecottage (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely a notable television show, and the character passes notability for fictional characters. Example of sources that are out there have been listed above. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why has this been relisted twice? There is clearly no support for Delete besides the nominator. Should it not have been closed as Keep? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs)

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.