- 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Night King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
So... what makes this fictional character notable? Sure, GoT was very popular those last few years, but its characters still have to pass WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. And there is very little about this one out there. Few mentions in passing, a good amount of episode summaries he appears in/fictional characters bios, but... I don't think that's enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep There are a huge amount of online news articles about the Night King. Granted, a lot of it is just paraphrasing various interviews or speculation, but they are in reliable sources, showing it's a character of note and there are not just a "few mentions in passing". As a primary villain of the show, he seems like a strange choice to choose to delete first.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Easy keep. The character was the main protagonist in the series and as such appeared throughout the nearly decade long series. And there is SIGCOV. We keep these articles because they are a net positive for our readers. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect based on current sourcing provided in the article. It currently doesn't establish notability, and the assertion that sources exist is currently unproven. TTN (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I generally recommend to merge articles of recurring characters, but this article is in a pretty good shape that might pass as a WP:SPINOFF. It should be an editorial decision to merge this character (e.g. to List of Game of Thrones characters), and not be discussed at AfD. – sgeureka t•c 09:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Night King has more WP:SIGCOV than many WP BLPs that pass AfD, including Harper's Bazzaar, Vanity Fair, the New York Times. I could go on and on and on. It would make no sense for WP not to have an article on one of the biggest villans of one of the biggest TV series in history. Withdraw this. Britishfinance (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Is this nomination an early April Fool's joke or something? A main antagonist in one of the most popular cable shows of all time as well as a best-selling booking series who has been made into action figures, etc. is notable by any rationale definition and the information is easily verifiable. Mainstream newspapers have articles explicitly about him, even such as https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/04/24/night-king-is-true-hero-game-thrones-so-maybe-we-should-all-be-rooting-him/ among many others. Not really sure how removing articles about these fictional characters really serves any useful or legitimate purpose anyway in what's supposed to be the largest encyclopedia in history. It's one thing if you're talking some unpublished work or something, but come on, really? --199.123.13.2 (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2019 (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.