Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Jorkens

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.

Joseph Jorkens

Joseph Jorkens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is a shameful collection of

I don't feel qualified to "bold case" vote but I will comment that the above comment is way out of order, and suggests that this person, who one understands nominated this article for deletion, did not do their homework. There is a lot of material on Jorkens, after 93 years. And I see that 1-2 reliable sources are enough to sustain many articles. I'm happy to help with improvements. 86.44.6.212 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: The article obviously has referencing problems but it is shameful not to follow
  WP:RS noted by the nominator ... I see two on the article. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The second source is a random blog post. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is based entirely on original research and is written like an essay. The subject himself has no individual third-party coverage outside of primary book-related sites and Blogspot is not a viable source.
  ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

See my comment above, the article, except for one part, relies heavily on sources, not this "original research." The assertion of "No third-party coverage" is absurd, given newspaper and magazine coverage, and critical essays. Lazy pushing for deletion of articles from an encyclopedia seems a terrible waste of the efforts of article contributors. 86.44.6.212 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article now has three sources and a couple of citations. More citations could be added using the book chapters by Joshi (2005) and Michell (2013), of which most text is available on Google Books - either to support more of the current text, or as the basis for a rewritten article. Ffranc (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samhain (2017) in further reading can converted into a source if necessary. The first page is available on preview on the jstor link. The remaining pages can be accessed by the jstor login (I believe a free subscription of 6 articles/month is currently available for jstor).

WP:RS !counting.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: notable fictional character, well known in SF / Fantasy circles. Just needs inline references. 91.193.176.225 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC) — 91.193.176.225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - passes GNG easily. What other reasons? Not OR, the article text draws on real external texts and at least one Dunsanian website, so why not just tag Improve Refs? Darrell Schweitzer is almost as respected a scholar as ST Joshi, and less controversial. A shout out to Fantasy, Literature or Irish communities should sort this. 83.220.239.192 (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC) — 83.220.239.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment Last two "keep" votes are from SPAs with no other edits.
  ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep: I do not think there is much unclarity about qualification per WP:GNG, as this is a fictional character existing since 1926, and published over decades, in commercially successful books, reviewed by a range of major sources, and with critical essays covering them. I am surprised, as I see Djm-leighpark was, that the article was not simply tagged for reference improvement. However, I have to put my hands up - I think I originated this article, and I fear I never came back to reference it more fully, though I think every word was sourced somewhere (no original research required); even if WP:EN was more relaxed about referencing then, it was not like some other WPs, and the citation should have been better. I will address this now.SeoR (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not sure we should be discouraging IP editors, who, as I recall, contribute more edits than registered users. SPA is not appropriate - these are not Single Purpose Accounts, they're not registered at all, but anyway, anyone is entitled to comment (they could be Dunsany or Jorkens fans, or even experts!).SeoR (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The improvements made since the nomination for deletion make it clear that the character is notable. Toughpigs (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This fictional character may not have made it to TV or film - though they'd make a good live action or cartoon series - but they are widely known in speculative fiction fandom, and were popular on the mass market, so as I read the policy, they are clearly Generally Notable. 46.233.65.95 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep A notable fictional character. An editor was able to improve the article and it is a keep. Wm335td (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep The inherent notability is obvious. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2020 (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.