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 no consensus. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jairus Frigate[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. Google turned up no reliable secondary sources devoting significant coverage to this character to indicate notability, which indicates WP:FICT cannot be satisfied no matter what. Doctorfluffy (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete**. I'd say Merge, but everything important already appears to be in the Riverworld article. -Toptomcat (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant character, running through the series. .Using the authorial voice is a significant structural element of fiction. Needs expansion, to include the real world content of exactly where he appears DGG (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Riverworld. There are already articles that discuss the literary device: Self-insertion (which lists Frigate as an example) and Author surrogate. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Riverworld. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Books brings up multiple books that cover this character. See http://books.google.com/books?q=Peter+Jairus+Frigate&btnG=Search+Books (Mind meal (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
merge I don't think anyone is saying this character does not exist, just that an unreferenced stub could just as easily be part of the overall article on the book series.Beeblbrox (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a very notable series, a notable character as the authorial voice, and sources talking about it. That's the sort of attention to character that does establish notability. This is the sort of material that the people discussing this sort of content keep saying they want. It needs to be expanded from the sources. DGG (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is your second !vote. Perhaps you could combine your rationales into one comment and strike the other !vote? Doctorfluffy (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a quick Google search suggests that it is indeed a notable character, but expand and add additional sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:27, 2 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.