Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Torrance

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Torrance

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

Nothing more than plot elements from The Shining (novel) and The Shining (film)/The Shining (TV miniseries). Entire article is unsourced, and refs included in header discussing status as "best film villain"/"best film character" can be linked in the parent articles. Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we're going to have any fictional character articles at all, Jack would have to be near the top of the list of those who are notable enough to merit their own articles. Not to mention that the existence of famous book and famous movie and notable miniseries complicates that question of where you'd merge the comparative content. And besides, All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment–A proverb with the name "Jack" in it does not inflate this character to meet WP:N requirements, and the existence of the book and films do not provide any basis for the notability argument since there is no content in this article now to merge other than the "best film villain"/"best film character" notations. There are no references in this article that show how the character meets WP:GNG, and the article as it stands now likely falls under WP:PLOT. Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could use a lot of improvement, but the character, in his film and book incarnations at least (don't know about the miniseries) is definitely notable. I'd be extremely surprised if there wasn't any scholarly writing about his character in either incarnation and I don't see how the article's potential is less than that of, say, Randall Flagg another Stephen King villain article that is considered a "Good" article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. I haven't had time to evaluate their depth of coverage or suitability, but a cursory Google Scholar search suggests that the character is at least referenced by quite a few sources. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, A quick look at books.google.com shows the Jack Torrance character being spoken about specifically in numerous books, seems to be notable. Mathewignash (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2011 (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.