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 redirect to Thank You for Smoking (novel). Mr.Z-man 17:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Naylor[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its single novel and film adaptation, and a few minor cameos, through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose He is notable. --Fixman^{Praise me} 19:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article does need a bit of work, but having appeared in multiple works of fiction and a fairly notable film adaptation, I'd say he deserves an article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thank You For Smoking. He's the main character in Thank You For Smoking, but the other mentions are simply passing mentions, aka cameo appearances and have no effect on his notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable character, in multiple prominent artistic works, has good potential for expansion. This is just the latest piece of TTN's tiresome vendetta against these articles. Rebecca (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've only read Thank You For Smoking, so I'm not sure how large a role Naylor has in the other three books. But it seems to me that we could at least use this as a redirect. Zagalejo^^^ 07:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thank You for Smoking; article has no evidence of having received significant (or any) coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reviews that discuss the character in some detail. [1] for example. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete the article mentions nothing more than the fictional character's reference in but 1 piece of literature. Should he appear in more works like Captain Nemo then there should be some mention, although more than year of it's presence on wikipedia not seem to have added any notability whatsoever.

And does the phrase "He is notable" count as a reason to keep it? Doesn't have much basis? Could well be a vested interest in it? (note: i'm not saying it is the case, this time, but it could well be. simply that no reason was given) Lihaas (talk) 13:48, 7 November 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.