Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kip Morgan

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kip Morgan[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PRO has been removed without useful rationale (despite me explicitly asking for one) by the usual party. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one would expect, the subject is covered in books about L'Amour and his writings such as Louis L'Amour: his life and trails; The Louis L'Amour Companion; Louis L'Amour: An Annotated Bibliography and Guide There's a good summary of the character here. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to link (or provide a page range) of any non-plot description? I can't see anything that goes beyond a simple plot summary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is without sourcing. The mentioned links above only provide plot points, nothing more indepth. People really need to start adding sources if they want us to seriously consider keeping an unsourced article. Especially when it is an unsourced article that has existed for 10 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence this fictional character passes GNG, and there is no redirect target and nothing to merge anywhere. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fictional character, about which very little is written outside of the fandom. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2020 (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.