Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horton the Elephant

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horton the Elephant

This article fails Wikipedia guidelines for notability in fiction, specifically under the elements of fiction section, which requires "significant coverage of the element(s) in reliable secondary sources" and "real-world context and analysis". This article essentially contains only plot information, which should be merged into the appropriate books (Horton Hears a Who! and Horton Hatches the Egg), as should the "Other characters" section. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Please note that I am referring the article about the character, not the two books in which this character appears (Horton Hears a Who! and Horton Hatches the Egg). Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable [1], [2] and [3]. Horton's motto of A person's a person no matter how small also throws up some interesting news stories about abortion [4]. RMHED (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That quote/principle is associated with Horton Hears a Who, which has its own article. —SlamDiego_←T 04:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. RMHED, your references are about the books (which are obviously notable) and not about the character—any information about Horton belongs on the articles about the books: Horton Hears a Who! and Horton Hatches the Egg. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just don't see how the lead character of two famous books and one major movie isn't notable. RMHED (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see how you can get more clear than "significant coverage of the element(s) in reliable secondary sources" and "real-world context and analysis". They simply don't exist. Anything to be said can be written in one or two paragraphs on Horton Hatches the Egg. Mr. Absurd (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though the article needs to be split--one about Horton, and one about the other characters. Conceivable the other characters could go with the books speparately, but not the material on Horton. This is a major character in two of the most famous childrens' books ever, with a significant literature about both the book and cultural refs.I wonder if the nom even thought about looking for refs--the google scholar search in particular seems to have material to very considerably expand the article. . DGG (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not denying that there are possible references to add real-world perspective (though I think you may be overestimating; most of these are simply about the books, not the character), but any real-world information belongs on the main articles for the books, not the character article. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. There's absolutely no real-world context to this outside of the books, nor anything that can be said that can't be a part of the articles on the books. RMHED's quotation above, as it's specifically tied to the plot and theme of a single book, is duplicative outside of its article. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It needs references (but often stubs do), but it's definitely a "notable" subject. I find it interesting to note that the inclusion of "pop culture" references might actually help indicate "notability", due to explaining this character's widespread appeal; and usage of both the character, and quotes of the character, outside the book's "universe", which indicate something more than just a fictional elephant. - jc37 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say it's definely notable. Why? I'm serious here—what significant coverage and real-world analysis have you found? Because if you haven't found any, your argument is effectively null and void. Mr. Absurd (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're requesting (to put it in better terms) is references to support my statements? Fair enough:
To start. here's some quotes of the character.

toy, et al

Though this review mostly concerns the movie, the reviewer notes the book as well, including a spiritual allegory regarding the character.

Another review] which, if you scroll down, describes both the books and the character. And another.

The character also appears in The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss and Seussical (lyrics), among other places, and so isn't restricted to the two books or their adaptions. (Such asthis game.)

And here's a reference concerning abortion [5]. And another.

And the last paragraph here.

And check out this memorial (home page).

And two of the movie's characters (one of which is Horton), being used here

And a women's book site

Education uses

Estonian allegorical reference[6] [7]

Dylan hears a who homage of sorts.

According to answers.com, "Horton Hears a Who! (1954), an allegory for the situation of Japan after Hiroshima".

allegory of the plight of those after Katrina.

A community library discussion concerning the allegory of the books and the characters.

This notes allegorical issues, and even legal issues concerning the difference between use of characters and the books (The Cat in the Hat, for example).

A review about something else, in which the reviewer compares themself to Horton. (In other words, use of the character as an arcetype.)

Spirituality in children's literature[8]

Another reference to the character as an archetype.

Several of these apply both to the book and the titular character, for, presumably, obvious reasons.

I also have a vague recollection of Horton being used in literary criticism, political analysis, and even in song lyrics, but by limiting my searching (the film, merchandise, and reviews heavily clogged the results) I haven't yet found them as links in my initial search.

And finally, AfD isn't for cleanup, so perhaps next time you'll request references and help develop the page, than to merely propose deletion. - jc37 00:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the 5 pillars Testmasterflex (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lead character in two books and a movie is obviously notable and other editors have noted independant coverage of the character. Edward321 (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These refs are probably above, but...[9] [10] [11] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: jc37 has demonstrated the rather extensive cultural notability of the character as distinct from the books, movie, and other productions the character has appeared in. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not as ubiquitously referred to outside the specific works where he appears, as The Grinch; but that is simply a far too high bar to set. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep. Though it should be improved. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 18:48, 11 September 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.