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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Zbornak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Like Miles Webber and Lucas Hollingsworth before this article has no reliable third person sources to indicate notability so should be therefore deleted Dwanyewest (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no supporting evidence 80.40.144.68 (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 2 seconds to look through the above Google Books link shows lots of relevant hits in secondary sources. While one might argue that those aren't sufficiently non-trivial, the nomination does not articulate a policy-based reason for deletion. There does not appear to be a list of secondary characters to which this article could logically be merged, but there is also no barrier to cleaning up the article to trim excessive plot summary. Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If the article is so notable why aren't you adding the sources to demostrate notability . WP:BURDEN is on editors to prove what they writing is true.Dwanyewest (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because you have it backwards. Individual bits of info must be sourced, but it is up to those arguing for deletion on the basis of notability to demonstrate that no sources exist. Thus, demonstrating existence of RS is sufficient justification to ward off deletion. If you care enough about the article to try to delete it, it is actually more appropriate for you tyo go add them. Jclemens (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; I'm not finding the sources that the editors in question are claiming exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Click news, books, or scholar above. There are sources that mention the character in each of them. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with maybe a paragraph created about this character on the Dorothy Zbornak page. -- role^player 16:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Again Jclemens (talk) you miss the bigger picture you by your own admission have stated the sources you found aren't sufficiently non-trivial. So it would not meet general notability. Because wikipedia policy states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2010 (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.