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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Venkman[edit]

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

Tagged as needing more refs for 3+ years and questions notability of the topic since February 2009. No meaningful edits have been made since then to address the issues, and the article still remains an in-universe fan analysis of the character. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rewrite the article. Egon Eagle (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has an effort been made to research the topic? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through Google Books Search, Google Scholar Search, and Google News Search but could not find significant coverage about the character that would warrant a stand-alone article. However, the title is a plausible term to search for, so the article should ~~redirect~~ to Ghostbusters (franchise)#Peter Venkman. I would also review the articles highlighted in the franchise article's "Major characters" section. If I could not find significant coverage for Venkman, I doubt similar coverage for the other characters exist, and the stand-alone articles may also need to be redirected to the franchise article. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the character has own article in other languages on Wikipedia, is there any solution to fix the article? Egon Eagle (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with keeping the article now. I would trim the Real / Extreme Ghostbusters sections, though. I think it's apparent that Murray's portrayal is the famous one, and I'm fine with having some in-universe information about the character's role in each live action film. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I'm very surprised that there is no significant coverage for the character considering the iconic nature of him but yeah, at the least it should be a redirect not a delete.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Article needs work, but the character is certainly iconic enough to warrant an article. Sсοττ5834^talk 20:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no sources that assert the claims that this character is "iconic." In order to meet WP:GNG, proof has to be shown that the subject meets the required criteria. You can't just claim "he's iconic" without backing it up. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  What about "one of The 100 Greatest Movie Characters of All Time"? Doesn't that count for something? --Lambiam 20:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 20:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Lambiam noted, one of the "100 Greated Movie Characters of all time", and (so far) none of the other Ghostbusters characters's articles are up for deletion. If they're going to be redirected/merged/deleted they need to be done so as a group, otherwise, kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I just added another citation from Empire Magazine that says Vehkman is the most popular character created by Bill Murray. That's pretty signifigant for a notable actor.Mathewignash (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh good grief. Character has appeared in multiple movies, spinoff TV cartoons, and who knows what else. There is no single compelling merge target, so even if the above references hadn't been found, this is clearly deserving of its own article. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget the video game! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ghostbusters (franchise)#Major characters: Notability requires verifiable evidence and there does not seem to be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject for this fictional character, particularly sources that make analytic or evaluative claims about the fictional character by himself, so I do not believe that he meets the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject independent from the Ghostbusters franchise. The two sources provided by the article for reception and significance beyond the plot, do not represent significant coverage and they are not secondary sources. As the character is closely associated with the franchise, I believe that redirection is better than deletion in this case. Jfgslo (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd concur, except for the fact that that would leave Venkman as the only Ghostbusters character without a stand-alone article, when he's probably the best-known of the entire bunch (not counting Slimer :P ). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge' not enough sources for my liking. But enough to buy it some time. I sincerely believe this article just needs some improvement and it will meet the WP:GNG. It's borderline, but I hope editors will work to put it into clear indisputable keep territory. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2011 (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.