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 delete. I'm not sure what the target would be, but any interested party is welcome to redirect this to a relevant page. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tak (Stephen King) (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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A villain from a pair of connected Stephen King books, The Regulators and Desperation (novel), that does not seem to have any out of universe notability. Unlike articles on other notable King villains, such as Randall Flagg, there is no sort of critical analysis or real world reaction to the character, just pure plot summary with a smattering of OR. While searching Google Books does come up with some hits describing the creature in various Stephen King guide books, these pretty much only talk about it either extremely briefly (just happening to mention his name as the villain of the books) or in a pure plot summary manner. Per both WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NFICT, articles on fictional elements and characters need to have more than just plot summaries to be notable, and I am unable to find anything that would allow this article to be anything more than that. Rorshacma (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've tagged this for a copyvio speedy, as it's taken from this website. You might want to look at Seth Garin, though. It isn't copyvio as far as I can tell but it does suffer from the same questions of notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Villains Wiki is licensed under CC-BY-SA, so it's content can be re-used here (or our content can be re-used there). WilyD 09:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, regardless of the result of the attempted Speedy, the notability concerns from my nomination still stand, so there's that. And you're definitely right about looking into the Seth Garin article, since doing some investigation, I'm finding even less coverage for that character than this one. Rorshacma (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A redirect might be useful but I'm not sure which article to have it go to. As far as the character goes, there's some coverage but nothing that shows him as a notable character outside of the fictional universe it is a part of. It's not like Jack Torrance, where it's shown up on multiple lists and whatnot. The most I've really found is where he's mentioned in books about King's universes, but nothing that would show individual notability. On top of all of that, the entire article is pretty much a regurgitation of the plot from various books and is also pretty close to original research and theory, such as the character being described in a similar manner as Pennywise the Clown's true form was described. Even if sources were out there, this would have to be entirely re-written to be encyclopedic and neutral.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:34, 26 July 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) 20:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete do to a lack of sources to WP:verify notability. No objection to a redirect if a suitable target can be found. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Desperation (novel). Ordinarily I'd suggest a redirect to the first novel he's in, but The Regulators and Desperation (novel) were published simultaneously, so it's hard to pick one with priority, especially as both articles discuss the character. But since Desperation was filmed (under the same title), I'll hazard a guess that it's better known, as well as being alphabetically first. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:00, 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.