Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thun'da

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 no consensus. leaning keep. Consensus seems to have shifted through the course of the discussion. Whether or not to merge or keep the content separate does not require AfD. TravellingCari 03:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thun'da

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Happy with a merge if a suitable target is found. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient notability. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom and per WP:NOT#PLOT - undue weight given to primary source description of fiction. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thun'da is an important charcter in the history of comics, influencing many later characters like Kazar. Couple refs: [1] [2]. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if those really count as separate sources, as far as I can tell Joplin Independent seems to be a site that collects articles from elsewhere (as well as contributing original content) and I'm not sure if them reprinting an article from the comic book bin counts as further coverage - if the Joplin Independent would even be a reliable source to begin with. Guest9999 (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Notability established by Peregrine Fisher. Matthew (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quality not a reason to delete -character of comics and a film, and also as per Peregrine Fisher. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established by Peregrin Fisher's references. Which need to be added to the article, even if only as external links for now. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a comic character with their own series would usually be notable for that alone, and having a very notable creator as well as being the subject of a movie serial makes this notable by any reasonable standard. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fictional character that appears both in his own comic book and is the subject of a full length movie is almost certainly notable, the more so here where the character was created by an artist exceptionally notable in his field, and portrayed by a major actor. That said, this article needs plenty of attention. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per everyone, notable unoriginal research verified in reliable sources. Needs to exist in some capacity. Also per boilerplate nomination “rationales” across multiple AfDs.--63.3.1.1 (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Peregrine Fisher's sources establish notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially since there are specific sources, making other arguments moot. DGG (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to King of the Congo or somewhere else. This character has no sources; it's the comic book and movie that have (weak) sources. Thun'Da does not stand on its own as a notable topic. Closing admin, please look at the sources. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Since none of the related articles are particularly long or well developed I think it would be beneficial to merge them together. There's no need to send readers trying to research the topic around multiple pages unnecessarily and if individual sections (such as the one about the character) became too long to fit nicely into onto one page they could easily be split off. Guest9999 (talk) 19:33, 29 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.