Deletion of Eddie Quist (2nd nomination)

Comment: The fictional character by himself does not meet the |general notability guideline as a stand-alone topic since most mentions in books or publications come from tertiary sources that mentions him mainly from a plot-only perspective without reception or significance in the real world. The article itself uses references about the film or tertiary sources, but no secondary sources making analytic or evaluative claims about him are provided, at best only a tertiary source of archetypes in horror films. Even with a quick |search engine test, I do not see convincing evidence that the individual fictional character has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to justify a stand-alone article about him
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SET)

Comment: http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Eddie+Quist%22 Google Books shows plenty of non-trivial mentions.  Per , I'd like the nom to explain how none of those books amount to significant coverage of the character.  I note that there seems to be a very low false positive rate for that name, so searching shouldn't be hard. Bottom line: Meets N, meets V, article could clearly be improved rather than deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)