Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Victor Tooms

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 per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Victor Tooms

This article, in the years it has been on Wikipedia, asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is only notable in relation to the two articles on the characters two appearances. It is an in-universe repetition of plot points from the X files episode articles, and is totally duplicative, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability shown. Transwiki it to a X-Files Wiki (if it's not already there). RobJ1981 (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Tooms, the article on the episode (X-Files episodes each have a article).HeartofaDog (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - (Merge/Redirect is good, but Keep is better) I'll go with the line that this character has a significance beyond a single episode (plus a comment that this was a time-wasting nomination based on inadequate research). HeartofaDog (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to The X-Files so another editor can try to work on it later without having to restart it from scratch.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with episode. Tim! (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous reliable sources for this. The absence of these from the article is the occasion for improvement not deletion per our editing policy and WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Doesn't anyone read WP:BEFORE before making nominations? This is an obvious redirect to the episode, as a name which might be searched for. Neier (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point but Tooms appears in more than one episode. He also appears in other forms and media such as the CCG. A separate article is a useful way of pulling this together. As for WP:BEFORE, this nominator routinely asserts that topics are not notable when a simple search indicates otherwise, as in this case. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per lack of sources that meet WP:N- unless Colonel Warden can point out where these "numerous reliable sources" are. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a link to sources on the talk page of the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, ok (still better to actually post the sources on the AfD, not the searches.) I could find one good web source which meets RS and secondary criteria, and several books make mention of him being a favorite. However, there's little that could be used to turn Tooms into a good article longer than a stub. My new recommendation is merge and use the sources found to improve the episode article, which possibly could become FA. Better to have one good article than two crappy ones, and spare us tenuously notable villains. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just added a USA TODAY based-sentence with reference to the lede. Without the existance of such references the article might possibly need to be merged with another. But since there are significant references that isn't the certainly case, so no sense speculating on that. There are enough references and coverage for the article on this character to stand alone. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge real-world info with List of MOTW characters, then redirect; I am open to unmerging if it gets too much for that list some day. X Files is probably notable enough to have some bits of real-world information for every minor character, but this doesn't justify keeping/having an article for each barely notable fictional element. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:11, 28 August 2008 (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.