Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Garin

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 redirect to The Regulators. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Garin

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was pointed out to me during my AFD of another character from the same book at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tak (Stephen King), and my rationale for deletion for this article is pretty much the same here as there. The article is comprised entirely of plot summary, and while looking for sources there are hits, these are also just plot summaries, and thus can not be used to verify any real world analysis or critical thought. Per WP:NOTPLOT and WP:FICT, articles on fictional elements need to contain more than just pure plot summary, and I am unable to find any sources that would allow for that to happen. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to The Regulators. Much like the article for Tak, the character of Seth Garin just doesn't have any notability outside of the fictional universe that King has written. This is pretty much just a regurgitation of the plot from Regulators. This might serve as a redirect to the book, though. I'm slightly doubtful that this would be a big search term, but hey- redirects are cheap. In any case, there's just no individual notability here outside of the book and even if there was, this article is written in an in-universe and semi-unencyclopedic style and would need almost an entire re-write. It's not nearly as bad as the Tak article, but it'd need to be rewritten in parts if it was kept.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this AFD some time ago and let my silence speak for itself, but as it's been relisted...agree with above. Doniago (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect per doniago. No sources to WP:verify notability or say anything that isn't in the plot of the regulators in some way shape or form. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2012 (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.