Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asok (Dilbert)

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. postdlf (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asok (Dilbert)

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

All primary sources and in-universe. No out-of-world notability asserted. Redirecting would be controversial. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". For example, the nomination asserts that "All primary sources and in-universe" but one only has read into the article a short way to find "The character is named after a friend and co-worker of strip creator Scott Adams at Pacific Bell." which is sourced to The Hindu. Warden (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, that source wasn't there when he started the nomination- I added that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information was there already and is not in universe. The article already had a NYT source which is not primary. The nominator seems to have made a cookie-cutter nomination without checking the facts, let alone doing the due diligence expected by WP:BEFORE. We shouldn't have to waste our time discussing an absurd nomination which is so far from the truth. But thanks for taking the trouble of doing a proper job yourself. The sources such as the BBC article are excellent and well demonstrate the notability of the topic. Warden (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "NYT" source is from Freakonomics, a blog owned by NYT. Also, it is mostly an interview, so it is so un-primary. Chris857 (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is the subject of substantive outside coverage per the sources now included in the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets Wikipedia's General notability guideline: [1], [2], [3]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources from the BBC, ABC News and The Hindu in the article provide enough coverage to clear the WP:GNG bar. Zad68 00:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. Really, TPH, you should know better than to not do a thorough WP:BEFORE check on any fictional element from a popular work--this could have been avoided. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2013 (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.