Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Arbuckle

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. An aside, but it's a surprise to see this character called "supporting". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Arbuckle

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fictional supporting character from well-known comics. Reception in the article is limited to a blog listicle, development is a bit more serious with one sentence of relevance, that the character is "an author surrogate". My BEFORE shows passing mentions but no SIGCOV. I suggest per WP:ATD-R redirecting this to the List of Garfield characters, with perhaps some merger since his entry there is just a single line. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG here are some sources with SIGCOV [1][2][3][4] —siroχo 09:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but which of those source has anything but passing mentions of the character? I see WP:SIGCOV failing all around. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not have access to the solrad.co (4th) one listed? If you did read it, I'd appreciate a more through rebuttal of its RSishness. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a large amount of SIGCOV in all 4 sources. Here are some examples, not exhaustive. Note that I make efforts not to risk copyvio, so I can't reproduce the entirety of the work here.
Abate 2017 Inks:
Of course, Garfield is not the only character in Davis’s strip who can be viewed as pessimistic and even depressive. This feature is arguably even more evident in Jon. To borrow some terminology from Yiddish, Jon is both a Schlemiel and a Schlimazel: he is unlucky, inept, and bumbling. In everything from his fashion sense, his interactions with women, and his own cat’s perception of him, Jon is hapless. As Jim Davis said of his character: “Jon Arbuckle is wishy-washy and a nerd.”26 Moreover, when it comes to romance, the cartoonist is even more blunt in his assessment, commenting: “Let’s face it, Jon’s not a stud, he’s a dating dud.”27

Vosen, ed. Vanatta, 2012 Chuck Klosterman and Philosophy:
Without Garfield, it is obvious how lonely and self-loathing the main human charac-ter, Jon Arbuckle, is. There is a reason the strip is named after the fat tabby he is the glue that holds Arbuckle together....
After reading only a few of these strips, a reader can easily see the existential crisis Jon is in. If the cats aren't able to see how Garfield is the only thing stopping Jon from having a complete breakdown, they should at least be able to appreciate that Garfield's life is far less depressing than Jon's.

Uidhir, 2013:
In the Garfield comic, Garfield's owner Jon converses and regularly interacts in humorous ways with the titular cat. In Garfield Minus Garfield, there is no Garfield, only the character Jon. Garfield portrays Jon as a hapless but well-meaning character who attempts to control the antics of his mischievous cat, Garfield. In Garfield Minus Garfield, however, Jon is clearly both emotionally and mentally disturbed, terribly lonely, and depressed, and perhaps even psychotic (e.g., he always appears to talk to himself, is prone to outbursts for no apparent reason, or simply stares at the wall)

Palevsky, 2021, Solrad, a majority of the piece is dedicated to the character, including an in-depth analysis of the character's faith. Here's a bit from the conclusion:
Jon Arbuckle’s world is as narrow as the space between two of the panels that make up his life—and, to him, that space is as wide as all of God’s creation. His self-centeredness is so powerful, so precise in its focus, that it manages to disarm and overcome anything and anyone that might attempt to foil it. In Jon’s inevitable 264-page autobiographical graphic novel, he would surely present himself as a good man, and he would believe in this idea, as much as he would believe in his peace....
—siro χ o 04:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources brought up by Siroxo (+ the Grunge article) seem sufficient to me to establish notability. Interesting that a lot of light shed on the character by secondary is derived from Garfield Minus Garfield, and therefore an appearance of the character based on but beyond the original comics. Which is another reason not to redirect to List of Garfield characters. Daranios (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The additional popularity of the character in "Garfield Minus Garfield" has definitely put him over the edge to notability in my view. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources above are enough to pass GNG in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an incredibly well known character. I'm suprised that a WP:BEFORE didnt bring up enough to deture this nom.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The current reception section in the article is terrible, but unlike most of the other characters in the Garfield franchise, Jon does appear to have enough coverage in sources that a decent article could be developed that goes beyond in-universe plot information and ref-bombing style cherry picked quotes. I think the sources provided above are sufficient for actually justifying having this one be its own article rather than just being covered in the List of Garfield characters. Rorshacma (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage about this character. Dream Focus 10:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is convincing coverage to pass the WP:GNG. The article needs work, but deletion isn't appropriate here. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can see the writing on the wall, but I'll dissent and not withdraw this, as I am not convinced the source stabilish notability for him separate from Garfield Minus Garfield. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 30 November 2023 (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.