Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaston (Disney)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaston (Disney)[edit]

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

Do we need a "character" page? We already have List_of_Disney's_Beauty_and_the_Beast_characters#Gaston. Kellymoat (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article proves subject's notability and is decently written with a good amount of third-party sources. If anything, some sections do go into a bit too much detail and could use some trimming. Plus, it reduces the length of the overlong BatB character article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge to Beauty and the Beast~~. Amending to Keep but only if improved per WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:Essay and some sections are clearly WP:SYNTH. Reads like an infatuated fan wrote it. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have worked with @Changedforbetter: before, and I can attest that she is thorough and comprehensive and professional in every article she works on. This article had previously been fancrufty and full of listy trivia, but then CFB came along and added a wonderfully researched "Characteristics and themes" section, as well as working the Development and Reception sections too. The rest - like Appearances - still have remnants of the fancruft, but surely her work in adding third party reliable sourcing demonstrates the sheer coverage about this fictional character in the literature, and shows that his article is well earnt? I know WP:Other Stuff Exists isn't an argument, but since they're quite similar, I'd like to point your attention to this list of Disney character and song articles she has brought to GA. Gaston is soon to follow, methinks. Ergo for all these reasons I think the article should be kept.--Coin945 (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does need some more cleanup - parts of it seem more like an essay than an article, some of the sources being used are not reliable and should be removed, and some sections contain some OR and unsourced claims. But, looking through the sources presented in the article, a number of them do talk about, and analyze, the character in more depth than simple plot summary, which I think allows this to pass the GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use improvement, but I agree with above comments that it does pass notability standards. Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CFB has done improvements for various articles before, the sources check out, and besides which, considering Gaston's the main villain, it just doesn't seem right for him to be relegated to a list character. Besides, the List of Beauty and the Beast Characters needs significant trimming down, anyway. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Come on folks, quality articles aren't born over night; take a quick look at my Belle (Disney), Aurora (Disney character), Monica Geller and Kim Possible (character) articles, to name a few, to find examples of articles that started off in an even more abysmal state than this one, but are currently considered to be among Wikipedia's best. If notability is your concern, simply Google "best Disney villains" and you'd quickly find that Gaston is within the top ten of countdown lists published almost every single publication in the search results (Reception? check). Sure, this article might be taking a little longer to transform than we'd like, and finding reliable sources for Development is proving to be a bit of a challenge. But hear me out: if this article is kept, I'll personally see to it that it's at least B-class status by spring. Don't believe me? Take a look at the "Characterization and themes" section; that's right, I did that ;)--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've restored several VG character articles and it's completely reasonable to stick up for your own work, but you're being a tad defensive. Just about everyone here, including myself, has agreed the article should stay. I've seen my fair share of fictional character articles that are really bad and crufty, and it took seconds to realize this was not one of those instances. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't nominate it due to being poorly written. I nominated it because of exactly what I said - do we need a "character" page.Kellymoat (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, do we really need a Belle or Beast article? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not a valid argument Kellymoat (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, by that logic, we should remove the Belle and Beast article precisely BECAUSE the existence of a List of Beauty and the Beast characters article makes their articles redundant. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not concerned with other articles. I/we can deal with them separately (as we should). This nomination is solely about this article. Kellymoat (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beemer69: Okay so I'm not so sure why exactly I'm being called out here for being "defensive"; all I did was state reasons the article should be given a chance, as the rest of us did, including you. Using other articles I've worked was only to provide visual examples of what this article could potentially become, sorry if you felt that was inapproate somehow. But as long as we're both arguing that the article should stay, I'm cool lol. Thanks.--Changedforbetter (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Goes into detail about the character. Some people refer to this article for the "Gaston machisimo" that he represents. I think it would be a disservice to WP to remove it. Justin15w (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly notable subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep full of references, clearly notable. We have no policy against having character pages.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 23:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's lots of good content about the character, complete with references. However, the article does need a bit of cleaning up in some areas. MidnightObservation (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2017 (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.