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. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character from a novel that doesn't have an article of its own. See related AfD Creovation. JuJube (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The character may not be notable -- it's hard to tell on a cursory Google search -- but the book certainly seems to be, based on reactions to the original serialization in Financial Times. Given that half the article is about the book anyway, possibly this should be moved to Who Moved My BlackBerry and recast to really be about it. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : The FT column is not a serialisation. The book is a novelisation of the column. I don't know if the novel needs a page but Martin lukes does (see my text below) --85.210.152.195 (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The character appears regularly in a weekly column in the Financial Times and the book is a spin-off from this. The FT column is written as a series of email correspondence and is presented as fact. Martin Lukes has become a sort of proxy for the shameless self-enrichment and hyperbole of modern management. I think the entry is a valid one for inclusion but needs tidying up. I'll try to get the time to write a better one. NBeddoe (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The character is highly notable. He is a minor deity in the pantheon containing Pointy Haired Boss and Michael Scott/David Brent. The article is badly written because it should emphasise the fact that he is the star of a significant column in a major UK paper. I have tried to correct this slightly but do not have time for a good rewrite. Also there is material on the Lucy Kellaway page which could be used. --85.210.152.195 (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unlikely reliable, secondary sources exist to satisfy WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Delete? What are you talking about? Delete Martin Lukes as non notable? Martin Lukes' column is the sole reason many people by the FT on a Thursday and (for what it is worth) was the main reason I took out a subscription to it. He is absolutely notable, and is quite separate to Lucy Kellaway (I am not aware of any notable public information which confirms that Kellaway is the author of the column, so to do a redirect to her page would be a form of Original Research). See here for the FT homepage for Martin Lukes. On a personal note I find it particularly distasteful that Martin Lukes should be proposed for deletion from Wikipedia while he is detained on trumped up charges by the US authorities and denied access even to his blackberry to defend himself. You might be interested to know there is a letters-to-the-editor campaign in support of Lukes gaining momentum even as we speak. Non-notable indeed ... good grief. ElectricRay (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you blathering about? He's a fictional character. JuJube (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Who stole my BlackBerry? or something similar. The novel/publication seems to be popular, but I don't think the characters require their own articles. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺ 02:59, 16 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.