Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Troup (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Troup (Lost)[edit]

Non-notable non-character-- fictitious author who does not appear as an actual character on the TV series, but only "existed" as a marketing ploy for the semi-tie-in book Bad Twin. The deletion also includes the redirects Valenzetti and Laird Granger. --Leflyman^Talk 03:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Lost Experience article.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This article meets notability guidelines... And the nominator is right- it is a notable marketing ploy, and there is valid information in this article that explains this. In fact, the ABC team made two websites that tie-in with Gary Troup, www.garytroup.net and www.valenzettiequation.com, and a publication, Bad Twin. Article cites multiple articles discussing Gary Troup, including coverage by the New York Times, USA Today, the Boston Herald, Variety... It's quite notable for Wikipedia. -- Wikipedical 05:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced and adequately written article. Discuss merging into another Lost related article as I'm unsure whether Troup is notable enough for his own article.--Opark 77 07:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the point of the AfD: an article about an inactive fictitious (not merely fictional) person "Gary Troup" is not notable. The "Lost Experience" and the marketing efforts associated with it are; a non-existent author created just to generate interest in a semi-tie-in is not. The core of this article's info is already mentioned at Lost Experience, where content from here can be merged, if needed-- as there will never be more to say about Gary Troupe, the character. The real author, Lawrence Shames, apparently doesn't merit his own article; nor does the book itself. We likewise don't have entries for Peter Thompson, Hugh McIntyre and, apart from Rachel Blake, none of the other fictitious characters in the marketing campaign. --Leflyman^Talk 16:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. SergeantBolt (t,c) 08:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Well sourced. -- Ck l o stsw o rd|^queta!|_Suggestions? 17:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per soapbox. A discussion in the article on Lost Experience is adequate. THere is a difference between discussing marketing strategies and furthering them. Redirect to Lost Experience. If must be kept, redirect to e.g. Marketing of Lost Experience. --Shirahadasha 17:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It's a well-written article on a notable subject. --Nishkid64 18:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could those (as above) claiming "notable subject" please provide a rationale of what makes "Gary Troup" a notable character/fictitious person requiring a separate article (from "Lost Experience")?--Leflyman^Talk 19:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a well-written article on a subject that is clearly internationally notable. However, I will say that sometimes I think a distinction needs to be made between subjects that are notable today, versus subjects that are historically notable and worth being documented, encyclopedia-style, for future generations. Though I definitely agree that the Troup article is worth keeping for now, my answer would probably change if asked 20 years in the future, by which time this article may have been merged into some other Lost article as little more than a footnote. But for now, as an article about what is effectively an in-process current event, where we have to maintain large amounts of information because we don't yet have the lens of hindsight to determine which parts are most important, I say yes, keep. --Elonka 19:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect into Lost Experience. Same with Rachel Blake. --theDemonHog 04:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very informative, very well written. Also important to note that it is not a foregone conclusion that Troup or Bad Twin exist solely as a "marketing ploy," especially given the recent revelation of the significance of the Valenzetti Equation via the Lost Experience. Even if that were the case, however, it wouldn’t necessarily disqualify the article, as it still contains pertinent information. Do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeingClever (talk • contribs) 23:21, 17 September 2006
Keep. Interesting article that seems to have enough separate content to justify its existence separate from the Lost Experience. Elonka makes an excellent point that the article is notable today, though probably not in 20 (or possibly even 10) years. Kubigula 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has enough content about the element to make it too large to merge in effectively. StuffOfInterest 23:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has other articles on fictional (or fictitious, despite the fact that one delete voter doesn't seem to know these are synonyms "per" Websters, OED, etc.) characters, and this is a character that we can assume to be canon until otherwise stated, despite the fact that they're never seen on screen. Thus neither the fictional/fictitious metric, nor the notability metric apply (consider the fact that "Gary Troup" has, all in all, probably more visibility on amazon, barnes and noble, etc., than the Hanso Foundation, which does have its own article) had in the show, and you will understand why this is also a bunk idea. All in all, the deletionists seem to have no real reason for this at all. Professor Ninja 20:16, 21 September 2006 (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.