Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Kane

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 redirect to Poltergeist (film series). T. Canens (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Kane[edit]

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

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

Non-notable unreferenced article about film character. No verifiable, sourced material is included in the article. Description consists only of plot elements from film trilogy and WP:OR such as "Kane is the classic villain; he possesses characteristics such as psychopathy, sadism, and insatiable greed." Sottolacqua (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Article, as Reverend Henry Kane, was deleted 17 May 2009 and recreated as Henry Kane 4 October 2010. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete: This article has exactly the same problems which led to its deletion previously. There are still no citations leading me to believe it is entirely original research (WP:OR). What's bad is I feel like the character is notable, but the lack of citations leads to a judgement of lack of notability (WP:GNG). Speed8ump (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Third recreation with no references as of yet. We currently have Reverend Henry Kane and Henry Kane. Redirect both to Poltergeist (film series) and protect the articles from further editing. Cind.amuse 18:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IT. What harm is it doing? I saw the films on TV last week so I wanted to know more. But I see that this is the third time the people who hate anything worthwhile on Wikipedia want it gone. I guess you just keep nominating away till you get your own way. So noble, so selfless to those who spend so much freetime doing work here to make this site readable. So it lacks references...well how on earth can you reference the plot of a film? It's impossible, unless someone has a copy of the novelizations of the script. Or have written in depth about these films. What is written here, can only be deduced from what is shown on the screen = thus forming the basis of the articles. Plots are not referenced so why should this be? It's simply a précis of the entire character's bio based on their film appearances! Viz how this be original research? Nothing has been made up, it's source is the Poltergeist films. Amusingly, the arguments posted here all appear reasonable but actually smell more of WP:IDL (an admin told me about this seldom used caveat when they were losing their own petty argument with me). So this article must be deleted, well why? It's not defamatory, incorrect or opinion (it's source is the films). The only thing that is missing are the mythical references (i.e. the Wikipedian yardstick that always tips the game in favor of the house). But that is a glorious fallacy that makes this site a hoot. You cannot say what you think because that would be a violation of original research but you can publish as much OR as you like if it's written somewhere else. Duh?! It's like being told you can't state you have a nose till an expert tells you, "yes you have a nose". So according to the deletionists, the Henry Kane character does not exist because he has no references too exist. But by reading the the plots in the relevant movie articles, it can be gleaned that Kane does exist!? [cue vigorous head scratching] No wonder people give up contributing to articles and move onto to yearn about what stuff they can delete. Simple. It takes no effort, no creativity and definitely no intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.136.21 (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikia has not yet become hazardous for articles about fiction. Reverend Henry Kane added to Horror Film Wiki on Wikia. Can you imagine wanting to delete stuff? I think it is more likely they just move on. Move onto Wikia is my advice. Anarchangel (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination, the votes to delete, all are critically flawed. Neither nominator nor voters have checked the two articles. Atrocious behaviour by the person who redirected Reverend Henry Kane to Henry Kane, when the redirected page had extensive references added by User:MichaelQSchmidt, and the redirect target had no references at all.

It is high time WP made it impossible to redirect if you are not an admin, and made an extensive review of redirects. Anarchangel (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Henry Kane article was recreated inappropriately, following the deletion of the Reverend Henry Kane article. Rather than "Speedy Keep", articles of this nature are appropriately deleted under the G4 CSD criteria. This is the standard result for all sufficiently identical and unimproved articles of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, regardless of the name of the article. Regarding Reverend Henry Kane, naming guidelines do not support prefix titles of this nature, but rather call for a redirect to the precise name. Let's say we had two articles, one named Reverend Henry Kane and the other named Henry Kane. If the first article contained more content, we would actually merge the content to the Henry Kane article with less content. We would then redirect the Reverend Henry Kane article to the second. The initial redirect to Poltergeist (film series) was made by an administrator in accordance with policy and the outcome of the AFD discussion. A second (misguided) redirect was made by a new inexperienced editor. This redirect was quickly identified by a bot, which then redirected the article to Henry Kane. So, we have an administrator redirecting in compliance with policy and based on the consensus of the community, then we have a new editor attempting in good faith to restore the article to a different name, then we have a bot redirecting to the precise, appropriate name for an article of this nature, while lacking an understanding of the community consensus to redirect to Poltergeist (film series). In the end, we have another editor revert the consensus of the community, remove the article redirection, and restore an AFD template directing to a closed AFD discussion from May 2009, that resulted in the initial redirection to Poltergeist (film series). Assuming good faith, I wouldn't define any of these actions as atrocious, but a sincere attempt to follow process as understood. Cind.amuse 01:15, 7 March 2011 (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.