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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 13:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Himu[edit]

Himu (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)

Unsourced for years. One ref that doesn't even meet WP:N for this. Either source it, merge to the author article, or delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NCHAR. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Nom is correct that the article has been poorly sourced for a long time (other than the list of novels, which has been improved and is self-supporting). However, the fact that it is poorly sourced doesn't mean reliable sources haven't written about the topic. I've added to a "further reading" section 15 English-language sources that could be used to improve the article. Since Himu is a character in Bengali-language literature, it is likely that there are additional sources in that language. If such sources are needed, I suggest enlisting the help of WikiProject Bangladesh and/or WikiProject India.

It's unclear how the the failed proposal WP:NCHAR factors into this discussion. Himu is the most popular recurring character of the most popular and prolific author in modern Bengali fiction, so he's the sort of topic one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. To argue that he's not notable would be like arguing that Jeeves or Tarzan is not notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lack of 3rd party cites makes the subject extremely vulnerable to AfDs, but as Worldbruce puts, Himu is one of the most significant fictional characters in Bengali literature, so much so, that books on him by Humayun Ahmed is often considered as a genre of its own. I was looking at Misir Ali by Ahmed, Professor Shonku and Feluda by Satyajit Ray and Kakababu by Sunil Gangopadhyay; all of these characters has somewhat similar significance and incidentally all of them are start-class or C-class articles. In 17 years, article on Himu haven't been improved so much. Same goes for many more articles in Wikipedia; all of these articles needs to be worked on, not deleted. While, AfDs are useful in cutting useless backlog, these are among those subject that has to be sustained and improved. --nafSadh did say 17:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an encyclopedia and we deal only in verifiable facts. The article is almost entirely unsourced WP:OR and massively fails WP:V. Referencing is not optional and Famous ≠ Notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone can reduce the article to a stub by removing unverifiable content, but is it your position that the fifteen independent, reliable, secondary sources listed in the "further reading" section fail to establish that the topic meets WP:GNG? If so, how do they fail? --Worldbruce (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see 25 books listed of which 21 are novels. Of the other four I don't know what they are as they are in Bengali and no explanation has been offered so they may or may not be reliable secondary sources. NCHAR says...

The coverage from reliable sources should talk about the character in a way which gives its notability from a real world or out-of-universe perspective. This means they are covered as a character in general, and not in the frames of its own series of fiction. For example, an observation of in-game statistics or a simple retelling of their role in the plot means little; the source should give commentary on why these things make it an interesting or notable character.

At present I am not convinced the external links ring the WP:N bell, although I am open minded on the subject if someone wants to offer a more detailed explanation of the latter four. Beyond the question of notability however, removing the unsourced content would reduce the article to a single sentence. Given the length of time it has remained unsourced since being tagged I have no reason to expect it will be expanded with sourced material and perma-stubs are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Perhaps that sentence could be moved into another article and this could be turned into a redirect until someone is actually prepared to write an adequately sourced article. In the end however, a single sentence stub is not enough for a stand alone article where history suggests there is little likelihood of expansion. And just for clarification, if this article is kept without substantial improvement in referencing, I will stub it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about two different things. The 25 novels you speak of are, as you say, primary sources, and don't establish notability. They aren't being used to support any facts other than that they are Humayun Ahmed's novels in which Himu appears (or are Himu-related, as in Himu Mama). However, the sourced list is itself useful content, whether kept here, kept but re-characterized as List of Himu novels (à la Canon of Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot in literature), or merged to author Humayun Ahmed.

What I'm talking about are the 15 English-language newspaper and magazine articles below the references, in the Further reading section. These are independent, reliable, secondary sources, of varying depth. They contain discussion of the character from a real world perspective and comment on why it is an interesting or notable character. My position is that they establish the notability of Himu as a topic, that they could be used to write a more than one sentence article on the topic, that the article is thus not a permastub (not a stub that has no reasonable prospect for expansion), and that, added during this discussion, they demonstrate that the article is being improved (even if identifying potential sources is a small step and has taken many years). --Worldbruce (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- According to the sources present in the further reading section of the page subject passes GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2017 (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.