Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Grant

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 --JForget 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Grant

Barry Grant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article lacks any real world information. Character name, actor name and years of appearance already in List of Brookside characters. Article may fail notability per WP:FICTION as well. Ultra! 20:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep "He was portrayed by Paul Usher and was in the series from episode one in 1982 until 1994 with several sporadic guest appearances in 1997, 1998 and the final episode in 2003" enough real world information to indicate he is very likely quite important. The article then asserts, ..."Barry Grant was arguably the hardest and most feared soap villain of all time" Needs some sources,certainly, but apparently the major figure in one of the historically most important soaps. I certainly am not one of those who want to keep articles on every insignificant fictional character. I have myself deleted some of the expired prods for the trivial characters from this series, & changed many others to redirect, working jointly & cooperatively with one of the people trying to screen out the minor articles from the more deletionist side of things. But removing this is wholly inappropriate and represent a total inability to see the virtue of compromise. One or two of the editors here argue that we should fight for every last possible character article, however minor, because otherwise people will try to delete even the most major. I still think that';sanover-reaction, but its nominations like this which make me see why someone might feel that way. Has enough real world info to show its a fictional character (many of the articles here a year ago didn't even do that); "may fail "WP:FICT" is a interesting way of putting it,because there is no agreed text of WP:FUCT, and the entire guideline and the necessity for one even remains totally disputed. anything and everything may fail WP:FICTION., but I cant imagine any acceptable version of it would elude the key characters of the culturally key fictions. But someone who knows the material must actually make some effort to source the basics at least, and the evaluative comments--thee are certainly enough sources judged by the other articles on this series--the details of the role in the plot can come from the fiction itself. DGG (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - He appears to be notable, although most news articles mentioning him are old and therefore subscription.[1]. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Didn't watch the series, but he's one of the few characters I can name. Googling confirms he was a key character and mainstay villain for a considerable period, something like Den Watts or Phil Mitchell in EastEnders. I'm no fan of the proliferation of articles about minor fictional characters either, from whatever medium, and in an ideal world this would redirect to the List of Brookside Characters which would carry potted biogs of the more important characters rather than being a bare list. In the absence of this, if any characters from Brookside merit a separate article, he's one of them. --Karenjc 08:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Week keep/Keep I had prodded some days ago, but after a discussion with DGG, I convinced that if there is any character in this soap that can be considered as important it's "Barry Grant". The article lacks enough real world information and I am not sure if the character was any significance outside the show but I hope this article can be improved and I would like to ask people more familiar with the subject to do so. I declined the option of merging this file into the list of characters since there are only names and years of appearances. Any merge would make things worse and not better for the List. I suggest we keep the article and hope for a serious improvement. We have to be a little patient and we can reconsider after some time. Extra comment: I am more worried about: George Jackson (Brookside). The charactered is much less significant and the reason I didn't prod him, it was this trivia section there which tries to give some real world information. But on the other hand, I can't verify if the information given is true of not. Please someone give a look at it as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge and redirect though not sure where. List_of_Brookside_characters would be the logical place, but that is simply a directory at the moment. Indeed, this entire universe is dire need of cleanup. As for User:DGG's point above: wrong wrong wrong. Mention of the character in real world contexts are simply in conjunction with the actor's career (who moved to the Bill); that is not real-world impact per WP:FICT. And as for the article's assertion Barry Grant was arguably the hardest and most feared soap villain of all time unless I see some credible source for that claim, I'd dismiss it as ridiculous guff - the kind of stuff that needs be expunged from Wikipedia. So: where's the real-world claims of notability for this character? Where's the real-world significance and impact? "Removing this is wholly inappropriate and represent a total inability to see the virtue of compromise." Are we reading the same article? Is that rhetorical escalation really justified by a completely in-universe article of a minor fictional figure that makes no claims outside of that in-universe world? Surely not. Eusebeus (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously. Main character of a top TV soap in the UK of long standing. If one really enjoyed reading soap or gossip mags, or some TV commentaries, there would be loads of 3rd party refs. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 14 May 2008 (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.