Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve Teschmacher (2nd nomination)

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. If people want to redirect it can be discussed on the talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Teschmacher

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The character, originated in the first Superman film, doesn't seem notable. The article consists of the plot only, and there is no reliable source. Redjedi23 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with the nom here; not finding much about this subject to pass GNG and warrant a standalone article. An Afd in 2007 appears to have agreed with that assessment as well. Appears to be a case of WP:FAN. User:Let'srun 15:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, and Science fiction and fantasy. — Karnataka ^talk 16:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The character seems like a potential search target, so perhaps redirecting to the first Superman film might be a good shot? If there's a character list she slots into, that might be worth a try as well. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/redirect. She appears to have a SIGCOV level treatment im this journal article. Shorter but usable stuff in this master thesis. Very borderline notability, given that GNG requires multiple SIGCOV treaments, and what I see is one SIGCOV treatment and several mentions in passing (also some weak media coverage like this and this, and this, the latter is better than average). I am disappointed that the nom did not discuss the first source (failure of BEFORE, given that it is easily seen on the first page of Gscholar resaults and seems OA). If this is kept, please tag with {{sources exist}} if not improved (I've tagged it with notability for now). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Piotrus' source finds. I was surprised to see so much, but then... a 45-year old blockbuster is going to eventually draw RS commentary on every named character, more or less. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the sources found by Piotrus. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:41, 10 August 2023 (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.