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. JohnCD (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Hill

[edit]

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

I'm listing this as a test case. I'm not sure what notability guidelines are for a fictional character, I can't find anything. But, if we were treating this as a real person, this article would fail monumentally. There are absolutely no sources, other than the character bio on Fox, which I would argue is not third person. I don't know if I'd consider a fictional character notable, and the content of this article could certainly be merged in with the show page, and the episode lists. Fbifriday (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is an essay on the notability of fictional elements. –anemone projectors– 17:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination talks of merger which is not achieved by deletion. It is easy to find third-party sources such as Masculinity and Popular Television. Warden (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we delete the page for this guy, who seems to be the main character in this show, we should also do so for all the obscure supporting characters in The Simpsons we've got pages for, like Cletus Spuckler and Nick Riviera. Wimpyguy (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, becuase WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. –anemone projectors– 16:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for noting that. This nom was not intended to start the deletion of all fictional characters on wikipedia, it was intended to delete this one, which I argue lacks notable third party references, or at least enough third party references to determine notability and inclusion on wikipedia. --Fbifriday (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant WP:ALLORNOTHING, AnemoneProjectors. ;-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this article is not particularly well-sourced, coverage in books of Hank Hill indicates that it should be possible to improve the article with respectable book sources. I may do so myself if I get a chance. Much of this article could be described as fancruft: "Articles on episodes of television series, or fictional characters in movies are more likely to be labeled fancruft if they are primarily summaries, biographies of made-up people, or collections of trivia that relate to the continuity of a series rather than its critical or social reception." Nevertheless, this article should be tagged for improvement rather than deletion because we can edit it to focus on the critical and social reception of the character. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure what the nominator means when he says, "I don't know if I'd consider a fictional character notable". There are myriad fictional characters here on WP and the nominator should be careful about nominating articles simply because they are about fictional subjects, if that was the intention. I think there is something to be said for the notability of main, title characters of notable television shows, fictional or not. In this case, there are some additional independent sources that discuss the subject. On balance, those things push me towards keep. Stalwart111 02:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My intention with my nom was not simply because he's fictional, but because there isn't a single thing that is sourced third-party, and is entirely written in-universe, in which everything that is discussed is taken directly from episodes, all of which are detailed on the episode list for the show itself. Because I don't know about the notability of fictional characters, I'm using the notability of people, and due to the lack of sources, I believe the character itself is not notable. --Fbifriday (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, understood - I'll strike that part of my comment on that basis - was just worried about that comment in particular. All good. However, I still think the book sources linked to by Metropolitan90 probably get us over the line. That's not in-universe stuff (fan fiction, spin-offs, etc) and there's actually a bit of academic stuff there. Like I said, I think you'll find most main or title characters from major television series will probably be covered enough to be considered notable. Perhaps not always the case, but I think it is in this case. Stalwart111 07:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is not a very good reason to file an AfD. That said, the article is primarily in an in-universe style and that needs to be fixed. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the article's state when you filed the AfD, I see now that it was bereft of reliable sources at the time. Hopefully, the ones which I and others have added since then will demonstrate that they do exist and the article should be kept and improved. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per WP:SNOW Boogerpatrol (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (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.