Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boomhauer

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. (

Boomhauer

Boomhauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This character does not establish

• Keep Boomhauer has 156 references [1] over the past 11 years at Google News archive. Cleanup is needed, but deletion is not, since the character has references outside the program which are independent and reliable. "The Hindi"(India) [2] tells us that "Boomhauer is a ladies’ man who speaks unintelligible English." Boston Phoenix [3] says "Boomhauer, who's the closest thing Arlen has to a hipster, stutters and mumbles his way through some incomprehensible, vaguely laudatory patter about how Seinfeld is "a show about nothing." He may yet turn out to be King of the Hill's Kramer. If nothing else, he's blessed with one of Judge's best voices since Beavis's out-of-control "Cornholio" alter ego." Other sources also provide information on the character. USA Today [4] says '.. because the Boomhauer brothers are relentlessly inarticulate, their feelings are mostly expressed through terms like "dang," "dad-gum" and "bowm chicka bowm bowm."' The Austin American Statesman [5] says"Boomhauer is showing signs of becoming a break-out character.." AP [6] says he is "an Army barber and sloppy bachelor, and mushmouthed stud." Since many of the articles are behind paywall, it is hard to be sure how extensive the coverage is. Edison (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In my opinion Boomhauer is pretty notable even outside of the show. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep IMO it can't be said that the character is less notable than some others. I would clean it up and keep it, otherwise, there are an awful lot of other articles that need to be deleted also if this is a standard. Mjpresson (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did some cleanup. Mjpresson (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized, added refs/reflist, el's, sectioned, removed fan entries and unnecessary details, restructured. Mjpresson (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Keep per above. 72.145.4.193 (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep another demonstration that for all types of subjects not just this type, when the claim for deletion is fundamentally that of no sources (for notability, for content, etc. ), a previous check is advisable, and should in my opinion be required. I wonder how many articles we would rescue if everyone did the sort of work Edison does. DGG (talk) 04:17, 10 November 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.