Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Bailey (fictional character)

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. John254 01:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Bailey (fictional character)[edit]

There's nothing here that isn't already in It's a Wonderful Life. Brought here because another editor's attempt to convert to a redirect was challenged. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Keep because of {{FICTWARN}} --Eastmain (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Wonderful Life is a film, not a TV show. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the notice. This is not subject to the injunction. --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least Bailey and Potter, who rates due to the AFI listing. Much has been written about George Bailey as an archetype. --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Characters of It's a Wonderful Life, it will allow the characters a little breathing room away from the main article, but keep them in one place. - LA @ 10:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This Google Books search indicates that there are reliable third-party sources that could be used to expand the article. That such sources are currently not included is a rationale for cleanup, not delete. See also this JSTOR search for some more potential sources. *** Crotalus *** 10:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable characters in their own right and lots of material out there.Jellogirl (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for Bailey. The paper plate article itself isn't very good, but It's a Wonderful Subject. As Dhartung and Jellogirl point out, much has been written about the character of George Bailey. On the other hand, I can't say the same about "Mister Potter", much less about "Clarence Odbody". In Potter's case, I'd say merge to Lionel Barrymore, and in Clarence's case, merge to IAWL (anyone else remember the early-90s made for TV movie "Clarence"?) Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Bailey; sufficient has been written about him to pass WP:FICT. At the moment, I'm neutral about the other two, though I'm inclined to merge them to some suitable target related to the movie. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the merits, as the principle characters of one the most famous Jimmy Stewart films, on the American Film Institute list of the 100 best american films--though the article should have some more criticism from the reviews and so forth, as found by other eds. At present, despite the importance of George Bailey, Stewart's character, he is actually described better in the general article. DGG (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for George Bailey. Iconic film character on par with Rick Blaine, with voluminous references in countless film books. Satisfies every aspect of WP:FICT I can think of. No opinion regarding the other two characters as I'm not familiar with the movie. The fact George Bailey is iconic even to someone unfamiliar with the film is an example of how the character has achieved wide-reaching notability beyond the original venue. 23skidoo (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Bailey per 23skiddo and Quasirandom. The other two should likely be kept also although I don't have sources off the top of my head. I suspect that many of the sources that talk about Bailey would have enough about the other two to satisfy FICT. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2008 (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.