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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watkyn Bassett[edit]

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

A previous AfD for a large number of articles about P. G. Wodehouse characters, including Watkyn Bassett, resulted in no concensus to delete all the articles but the suggestion by the closing administrator that the articles be renominated individually. This is the individual renomination for Watkyn Bassett, a character who fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A character who is notable enough to be referenced to illustrate points in the opening paragraph of a CCC Money article ([1]), in a book of essays on the Roman World ([2]) and in another on poetry, class, and ideology in the 1930s ([3]). And that a reviewer of the Loeb edition of Lucretius's De Rerum Natura can allude to the character without further explanation (The Classical Review, vol 27 no 2 (1977), p 180) argues that the character is notable. I also found a reference in The Cambrian Law Review (Safety First: The Selection of Metropolitan Police Magistrates, 1950-1961, vol 57, 1996), where Bassett is described as a "mildly fictionalised" version of 20th magistrates, but it's a pay-site so I can't assess its relevance. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sources Jimmy Pitt has uncovered--needless to say, these should be added to the article in question! Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the corresponding character list of ((Lists of P. G. Wodehouse characters)). I reason per WP:SPLIT, there is no reason to have a character stub article around for years (i.e. that no-one is willing to expand/re-write so that it satisfies wikipedia policies and guidelines), even if the character has some notability. Better cover a character neatly in a character list and allow a natural growth, instead of continuing to keep a stub-mess around. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the sources cited here. .I note that sgeuereka admits notability, but wants to delete because it has not yet been expanded. That's an argument contrary to well-established policy: There is no deadline on improvement, and stubs can last as long as necessary--even permanently. That';s

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.