Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Acres

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. There appears to be a rough consensus that enough reliable source coverage exists to ring the WP:N bell. If there is a belief that the project might be better served with a merge that discussion should occur in a dedicated merge discussion. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Acres[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCHAR. ^Falling_Gravity 06:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable. While I haven't really heard of this before, a cursory look at Scholar suggests this character was subject to some literary analysis: " Bob Acres is not the reputed author's original creation, but a compound of Jonson's Stephen, Bobadil, Cob, Matthew and Brainworm" [1]. He has a (short, but still) entry in this dictionary/encyclopedia-like work: Jonathan Law (16 December 2013). The Methuen Drama Dictionary of the Theatre. A&C Black. pp. 4–. ISBN 978-1-4081-3148-0., and he is important enough to be a central subject of what seems to be a teaching exercise at James Stobaugh (1 November 2012). British Literature: Cultural Influences of Early to Contemporary Voices. New Leaf Publishing Group. pp. 238–. ISBN 978-0-89051-673-7.; to find just three sources. Ping User:Jclemens who can probably dig even more sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Piotrus in that a cursory look through Google News, Books, and Scholar suggest that this character has enough coverage for an article. The article may be in an extremely poor shape as it currently stands, but the subject matter appears to have the coverage necessary to meet notability standards. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Rivals and merge the minor detail this article provides. Perhaps there enough reliable sources to establish notability. Having this bit existing separate from The Rivals suffers from lack of context that merging it does not. WP:NCHAR isn't a notability guideline although I like it's 'other options' advice for this subject. Nothing prevents breaking it out to a separate article later if the content is expanded sufficiently to warrant it. Gab4gab (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 13 June 2017 (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.