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. The consensus is that the the subject has been discussed sufficiently in scholarly sources to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. Nice work by Ginsengbomb improving the article over the course of the AfD. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Wemmick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Entirely unreferenced, entirely original research, and there is no reason why this character should have his own article when other, more major characters, don't. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 07:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with your assessment of the article's problems, but there is plenty of activity in GScholar and GBooks to justify inclusion. The character is the subject of plenty of independent scholarly research. Your second argument for deletion (the bit beginning with "no reason why") isn't a valid argument. The outcome here should be to improve the article, not exclude the topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, the outcome here should be to delete the article (hence the phrase, "Articles for deletion.") The page is almost four years old, and has been full of unreferenced drivel and crap original research in that time.

  If there are plenty of sources, then you add some now, Ginsengbomb, to prove the fact. Because I'm not convinced. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 08:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no opinion on this particular debate, but must comment on something said above: <>Actually, the outcome here should be to delete the article (hence the phrase, "Articles for deletion.")<> If you think that's true, start an AfD for Barack Obama or The Beatles. They would then appear right here on the "Articles for deletion" page, and for that reason they should be deleted. Right? DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't mean that. I meant to point out that Ginsengbomb's statement, "The outcome here should be to improve the article, not exclude the topic," is patently incorrect, because the concept of AfD necessarily entails the possibility of deletion. I think you probably knew what I meant, actually. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 15:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that is not "patently incorrect." It is my opinion that the outcome here should be to keep and improve the article. I apologize if that was unclear to you. It is clear you didn't know what I meant. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It is your opinion. Precisely. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 18:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Everything in an AfD represents the opinion of a given editor. I think that was pretty clear. Your opinion is that the outcome should be a deletion, mine is that the outcome should be to keep and improve. Neither of these opinions are "patently incorrect." Perhaps we can move on now. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I was referring to search results like this. I am not sufficiently familiar with Great Expectations (I majored in English and somehow managed to never read it...amazing!) to do much work on this article that would add value, but GScholar and GBooks seem to demonstrate quite a bit of coverage on this character. Certainly, this is primarily because the character appears in one of the Greatest Novels Ever Written, but coverage = coverage. I am not judging the article's current content -- that is essentially immaterial to the debate. That you think the "outcome here should be to delete the article" is made pretty apparent by the fact that you nominated it for deletion, so no further clarification is really necessary on this point. But thanks for that :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If you, someone who claims to hold a degree in English Literature, are not able to use the available sources to improve the article, and it has been stagnant for four years, then it's time for it to go. If anyone competent can bring it up to our required standards (at least some cited sources is a requirement iirc), it can be re-created at that point. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 15:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll source this in a few hours. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three sources. Hopefully, given a bit more free time later this evening, I'll be able to rework the meat of the article such that it reflects available sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have made several substantial revisions to the article. Most notably, with regard to this AfD, I have added some scholarly sourcing, as well as verifiable citations for a few items.

  This article could clearly use the attention of someone more familiar with Great Expectations than I am (I've never read it), but I think this is a good start and helps to establish notability. I also removed some copyvio material which had been ripped straight from a SparksNotes article, cut heavily back on the "Relationship to Pip" section (which was written so poorly as to be practically incomprehensible), etc. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "when other more major characters don;t" is a good reason for writing the other articles, not deleting the ones we do have. Every character of significant importance to the plot or background of a famous novel should have an article. (note that I said a famous , not merely a notable, fiction. Theywill all be discussed substantially in the immense amount of critical literature., as Gingsengbomb has just shown here. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 18 April 2010 (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.