Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwildor

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. Black Kite 00:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwildor[edit]

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

There is a no reliable third person sources and lacks notability Dwanyewest (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a major character in a notable film, had his own action figure, and appeared in various comic books. Dream Focus 07:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to out of universe coverage in reliable secondary sources proving this character's notability, such as this magazine that reveals who plays as the character, which character from the show this film character is based on, as well as who designed the character, a description of the character, and the character's relevance to the story, which I have incorporated throughout the article. There appear to be a couple dozen other published books we can use to further improve this article. And as pointed out above, this character is not just in the movie, but also as a toy as well as cover character of a publication. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So a comic scan [1] and a handful of books which either list the Billy Barty as portraying Gwildor with a couple lines of information [2][3] and one of the dozens books has nothing to do with the character [4]. The number of google hits a characters is reliable third person evidence to confer evidence. Plus a few lines in a few lines in a book is hardly substantial coverage of the subject to make it notable.Dwanyewest (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That cinefantasitique article looks pretty good. Too bad it isn't accessible online in full. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are sufficient for notability , even for those people who feel that it is not enough to be a major character in a major film. The nomination, apparently without checking, says there are no 3rd party sources. Sources are shown, but the response is that they aren't long enough and that all of many books presented which apparently deal with the subject "have nothing to do with him," With arguments like that, one could delete most of Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 25 February 2010 (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.