Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Humphrey

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) SSTflyer 13:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Humphrey[edit]

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

This fictional has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. Most sources appear to stay within the realm of WP:TRIVIALMENTION, as they discuss the show or the actor portraying this character. Specifically, no sources show how this character has any independent notability from the books or TV series in which it appears. AadaamS (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gossip Girl (novel series). I agree that there is no basis for a stand-alone article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per comments on another stand alone character article in the same series that was nominated for deletion here with keep as a result. Brocicle (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simply because the lead characters of lead series are usually kept as their own article, although they may not be actual people, there's usually enough for a separate article at least. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid arguments along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT and each article is judged on its own merit, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Notability is not inherited across characters. The GNG only cares about verifiable notability, so which sources do you think verify the notability of this character? AadaamS (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAs per above Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above and because the nom has failed to comply with WP:BEFORE and dismisses without examination the significant body of academic criticism that even a cursory GScholar search turns up. "'Teens Win': Purveying Fantasies of Effortless Economic Mobility and Social Attainment on Rich Teen Soaps" is hardly my idea of entertaining reading, for example, but lack of interest in the content of available sources doesn't justify ignoring their existence. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2016 (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.