Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy (King Kong) (2nd nomination)

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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy (King Kong) (2nd nomination)

Jimmy (King Kong) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was previously nominated for deletion on January 13, and the result of the discussion was "no consensus." I believe that this character is insufficiently notable to have its own page. Delete and then semi-redirect (i.e., having a link to King Kong from Jimmy). --Nlu (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per very recent AfD. Notable character of two movies, presently the article justifies its self. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Why does it matter how notable the character was in the movies? The guidelines (WP:FICT & WP:WAF) require notability to be measured by secondary sources discussing the subject from an out-of-universe perspective. --maclean 02:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Last discussion closed less than a month ago, please submit a deletion review request instead. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - A character who appears in two films, two books, a comic, and a video game. Can be found in lot of reliable sources dealing with king kong on the web. - Peregrine Fisher 18:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with the movie article. Jimmy was an interesting minor character with several lines, just enough that he might have a sentence or two in a synopsis or discussion of the movie. Without several reliable sources where he is a primary subject. the article fails to show notability. Articles can never "justify themselves." Inkpaduta 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep too soon. Per above as well. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Too soon. As we still have no rule for this, we need to judge of general conceptions of fairness. this is a typical case, where there is nothing additional to say. I think the general feeling here is that a month is too short, and it would be good to establish that as a precedent. I think the consensus might be longer, but a month is certainly too short. DGG 03:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I can see the point about doing a deletion review if the discussion result had been "keep," but that was not the result. --Nlu (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It would require a secondary source to establish notability and encyclopedic treatment per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) to warrant splitting it from the main article. It has been a month since the afd and it still cannot do either. --maclean 02:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Peregrine Fisher and the general feeling this is too soon. Mathmo ^Talk 04:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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.