Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unseen character (2nd nomination)

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 Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen character[edit]

Like stated in the previous afd, this article is basically an original research "magnet" and most of the article is still unsourced. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 12:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unreferenced and a candidate for cleanup certainly but it is a very important concept in the TV and theatre industries and I feel wikipedia benefits from having an article on it - Dumelow (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honestly, this looks more like a list than an article, and should probably be split as such, with List of unseen characters showing notable examples of the archetype while this character should focus more on real-world notability via sourcing and... such. (My internal thesaurus is teh fail! ^_^) That'd make my vote a Keep, although if it turns out that way I will try to raise this issue on the talk page. JuJube (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be easy to source this, given that there have been several encyclopedias written about television programs, such as Tim Brooks and Earl Marsh's Encyclopedia of Prime Time programming (or maybe he wrote "Total Television", which also describes the shows in alphabetical order). This one could use some trimming since the last time I saw it ("Fred Sanford's deceased wife, Elizabeth", e.g.-- trying to get that picture out of my mind). But the unseen character is "seen" (in the viewer's imagination) less often than a regular, yet more often than a recurring character. I'm going to add some sources right now just to clear up the O.R. objections. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it's now mostly just a list but the topic is notable. Needs significant editing. JJL (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has the potential to be a good article. Carcharoth (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nominator. It's original research and a crufty list, not an encyclopedia article. --kingboyk (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, that an article attracts cruft/OR/whatever is not a delete reason. This term is a real literary element. The article's quality is something you fix, not delete. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clean the article up a little and properly source it, and i think it would be a useful article. God knows there are worse articles on wikipedia Masterhatch (talk) 22:56, 23 January 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.