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. ONEEVENT cannot apply here, and Banjeboi's presentation of sources is unquestioned - cannot accord consensus in either direction Fritzpoll (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banky Edwards[edit]

Banky Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Notable? Stars in one movie, the sequel appearances seem to be bit more of just a trivial mention. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stars in two films, but still not notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, if memory serves they're just "walk-on" parts/cameos. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, I just came to this page to improve it with information from the Journal of Bisexuality aricle "The Pleasure and Pain of Chasing Amy" which comments on the multiple interpretations of the characters as understood by viewers of different sexualities. The character is a minor figure of interest in queer studies, although this information has been heterowashed out by editors.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Person may be of trivial, questionable nature and it may qualify under WP:ONEEVENT. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 20:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually as a fictional character one event could not apply here. -- Banjeboi 18:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article consisting largely of original research about a fictional person of no established notabilty in the real world via reliable independent sources that discuss the fictional character in any depth.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I think you mean primary research as the content is attributed to the primary sources themselves. Original research is serious but I'm not seeing that here. -- Banjeboi 18:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reliable sources, including some of these books, this scholarly review, this likely helps, Ghits of news sources, some bits are likely here, and this one may help as well demonstrate the character is well covered and not just in the superficial sense. This seems to be an entire fictional universe they are in witha trilogy of popular films. A good article can be made here. -- Banjeboi 21:15, 6 June 2009 (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.