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.
I no longer wish to propose the article's deletion, however I think it may be a good idea to leave this open for a while to see if there is consensus for a merge or not. However, if someone believes the discussion ought to close, we can move the merger proposal to the article's talk page. Mww113(talk)16:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This character is the main protagonist in the sequel novel Doctor Sleep, as evidenced here. We need to focus on whether or not the character is notable enough for a stand-alone article; the quality of the article is completely beside the point, per WP:BEFORE. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me)14:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable fictional character; I have added some commentary about Danny Torrance based on his central appearance in Doctor Sleep. There also appears to be commentary about Danny in The Shining (both the book and film). I also rewrote the lead section to give the character's fictional appearances more real-world perspective, such as who played him onscreen. Also support moving to Danny Torrance as the common name for the character. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and mergetoThe Shining (novel). While my WP:OR, WP:CITE, and WP:STYLE concerns have been eliminated with the overhaul (which was quite nice, I might add), I still remain unconvinced that it should be a stand alone article per WP:BKMERGE. I think it would be more visible as part of the main article as I think more people are likely to search for The Shining than this character. But I am willing to be persuaded otherwise if someone wants to present a good argument as to why the character is notable enough. Mww113(talk)16:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the update and assertion that the character is notable in multiple books, I'm satisfied that there is no longer cause to delete the article. Major props to Erik for a major overhaul that saved this article. I will be withdrawing this nomination. Mww113(talk)21:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per above. I think I'd need to see sources that do some substantial character analysis before I would feel the character is notable enough, but I'm open to seeing what else may arise during this discussion as well. DonIago (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Keep - I think the sources that have been provided satisfy my concerns. It may still be worth having a separate discussion regarding merging the article, though Erik raises valid points about how that could best be handled. Very good work on bulking up the article. DonIago (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mww113, Doniago, I added more content as seen here. When it comes to fictional topics, there will naturally be redundancy. An article about a work of fiction and an article about a fictional character will share content, but the focus will differ. I would agree that if a character appears in more than one work, it increases the likelihood of coverage of the character across multiple works. To have an article about a fictional character that appears in only one work, there would have to be a lot of coverage very specific to that character. If the character appears in multiple works, then a stand-alone article can be appropriate to consolidate all the significant coverage in a place that stands above any one article covering each work. I would also say in this case, Stephen King was apparently propelled to write Doctor Sleep out of others' specific interest in Danny's fate. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)17:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, merging complicates where to put comparative content. Coverage about Danny beyond the original novel would not quite belong at the novel's article as it would in his own article. I think it is detrimental to balkanize the content. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)17:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've removed my merge !vote: I don't think it's a problem to keep the article now that it discusses the character in a broader context and asserts notability. --Slashme (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2015 (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.
