Murder Legendre: Currently, it fails the following tests, per WP:DEL-REASON  : 1.	Insufficient citations from reliable sources, per WP:RS .  -	The current citations are solely for the film White Zombie , not for the character Murder Legendre.  -	The article seems to have been written 'top down' and its talk page is now requesting sources, rather than being built from the citations.  2.	Failure to meet notability guidelines, per WP:N and WP:GNG : -	The character does not have significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV .  -	The article describes a character who appeared in only a single film, for which there is already an article, and so the character's notability is not demonstrated.  3.	Content not suitable for an encyclopaedia, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE : -	The bulk of it, the Life section, is an expanded version of the White Zombie film plot described from a different POV using original research, and that article already has a Plot section.  The other sections here could be added to the White Zombie article.  -	The grammar, punctuation, spelling and style are poor, reading like a fan blog rather than an encyclopaedic article.  I think this page should be sent back for substantial rewriting in draft, especially to demonstrate notability outside the film, and in particular why the Murder Legrange character should have its own article separate from the White Zombie article, supported by reliable sources.  Masato.harada ( talk ) 15:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, the creator has commented here but please, next time you take a page to Afd, please leave a note on the creator's talk page (among other steps to create an Afd that, unless I am mistaken, you seem to have forgotten).  Also, given the extensive existing coverage on this very character and  improvement made to the page by Dr vulpes, would you consider withdrawing this nomination?  Notability seems clear and clean-up and punctuation are not generally considered good reasons for deletion.  Thanks.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 12:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 26 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The page presents some reliable sources ...it can be improved with extensive coverage in other reliable books (at least 5 on the 1st page of results of a G books search, for ex.).  If no one wishes to do it, I will. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I created a proper article, I added explanations, references, a few citations, links, an image, a talk page, an infobox, clearly I made it into a proper Wikipedia article.  Why is the need to draft it?  Rytuyityu ( talk ) December 27, 2023 (UTC) Hello @ Rytuyityu : , do you need help to format your comment?  You might want to add a bullet , your proper signature and read this , maybe? - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 11:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I went and added some academic sources for this article.  Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dr_Vulpes, thank you for your help in the sources, just where did you get them from?  (Talk) 06:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rytuyityu Google Scholar [1] .  Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, all, for adding sources.  However, they do not address the issue described in my original observations above, that is, the notability of this character.  The White Zombie film is clearly notable, but the sources added all seem to be primarily about that film.  I am still not seeing a reason for a Murder Legendre article which is separate from the film.  Masato.harada ( talk ) 14:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, various sources do address the character directly: please kindly open the links and read them: 2 paragraphs in Senn's book, 3 in Rasmussen's, more than a page here , at least 2 paragraphs here , and so on,....  fwiw, see also this .  These are reliable sources independent of the subject so that the character does in my view meet the general requirements for notability.  Best.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 15:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just saying guys, but why are you fellas deleting the Murder Legendre article when you have other, more horribly made articles about characters that you can focus on deleting to show maybe that you're right or not.  (Talk) 01:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rytuyityu ( talk • contribs ) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Re-direct to White Zombie .  I've been writing extensively about early horror films on Wikipedia and there is barely any real study in series and characters in these films uniquely...possibly outside Frankenstein and Dracula and even then, I feel like they can be better fit i ti their respective film articles or series articles.  I wrote the good article on White Zombie years back and there is so little that is found here that isn't just material that can be re-iterated I to the film article.  Who on earth would look up one and not the other and expect anything major differences?  Andrzejbanas ( talk ) 10:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The coverage addressing the character directly cannot be described as a re-iteration of the film plot.  Who will look up one and not the other?  Well, those who are interested in the analysis of this notable character.  If they feel like reading the page about the film, too, what's the issue?  Will they expect major differences in the content of the respective articles?  Of course, they would.  The page can be improved but I think coverage is sufficient to warrant a standalone article.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 13:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree as the of current, the only thing the article has is a re-iteration of the plot of the film, and some vague interpretations from Rhodes and others discussing the performance of Lugosi within the context of the film.  There is nothing here discussing him outside the context of White Zombie .  Andrzejbanas ( talk ) 16:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ?? ?  Have you opened the links and read the sources by any chance?  (and more exists; willing to add it later, fwiw)  If you have (read all the sources completely) and are still sincerely thinking what you are saying, well, let's agree to disagree.... Some of the coverage may be deemed as vague by you, some may discuss the performance or the political/gender/race implications of the character and so on, but they do focus on the character extensively.  Even if the context of the film is obviously evoked and present at some point, the character is the object of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources addressing the subject in-depth and directly. ) I'm afraid I have no further comment.  Best wishes, - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then go ahead and add it.  (see WP:BURDEN ).  I see several sources, but if this is to be expanded then do it.  In it's current state, it is not noteworthy.  Andrzejbanas ( talk ) 16:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a friendly reply.  Much appreciated.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 16:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – I would have said to draftify it, but per the improvements made since the discussion started (per WP:HEY ) I think the subject just about meets the notability criteria.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 21:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to White Zombie .  This whole AfD has been a mess and a half, but judging from an outsider's perspective on this, there does appear to be some good coverage on Legendre.  However, there doesn't seem to be enough sourcing wise to justify Legendre's split.  Any of the info here can easily be covered in the White Zombie article, perhaps as part of the Critical Reception/Influence section, given the analysis of Legendre's role in the film.  As it stands, however, unless more sources discussing Legendre individually come to light, I'm going to have to vote Merge on this one.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So can this whole discussion about deletion of this article finally go away please.  (Talk) , 10 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykgnugji ( talk • contribs ) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to White Zombie .  The coverage doesn't rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV , particularly with only short one-sentence mentions in the reception.  There is certainly something worth preserving here and it can be covered at the main article about the film.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 15:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to White Zombie (film) - Aside from the concerns regarding the actual sourcing not being sufficient to justify a split out article, I would argue that this is also a WP:NOPAGE situation, where it just makes more sense for the character and his reception being covered as part of our overall coverage of the movie itself.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment :The documentation about Merge indicates that Merging should be avoided if "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short."  I have already insisted on the fact that multiple reliable sources offer very significant coverage on the character specifically.  Please read the article and open the sources linked.  None of them is trivial, none of them are passing mentions.  They do establish the notability of this character.  Cannot see how this sourcing could be judged insufficient for a standalone page, let alone what only short one-sentence mentions in the reception refers to.  What reception?  Where?  What's more, the White Zombie page is now considered a Good article and the insertion of so much material would certainly be challenged (if permitted at all) as undue coverage of a specific topic, which would make the merging problematic if permitted at all by contributors who have so far managed to stabilise a version of the article about the film and merging would  be detrimental to the page quality and balance in my view.  Remember that stability and focus are two criteria for GA articles.... Improvements are certainly possible while merging would therefore also imply a drastic loss of information about the character.  When I read that it makes more sense for the character and his reception being covered as part of our overall coverage of the movie itself Why?  If guidelines warrant a standalone page, how does it make more sense, not to keep it separate?  If GNG requirements are met, the existence of a standalone page should not be challenged. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 12:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Its quite simply because I don't consider these to be "discrete subjects".   Its a single, standalone movie, and a character that only appeared in that one movie - these are topics that I believe should be covered in a single article.  If Murder Legendre was a reoccurring character that appeared in multiple movies/works of fiction and had a lot of coverage regarding those different appearances, then that might be the case that he was a distinct subject from White Zombie .   But when he only appeared in this single movie and all of the coverage is about his appearance in that one movie, then it should be covered in the article on that movie.  In regards to the concerns of the  length and structure of the resulting merge, proper merging does not simply mean copying one article entirely and pasting it into another, it should be a case where the various pieces of information in this article are integrated into the proper sections of the movie article, with duplicative information not being moved over at all.   For example, obviously the bit of this article summarizing the movie plot would not need to be moved over at all, as the film article already has a detailed plot summary.  The section describing the reception of Lugosi's performance would fit in in the Reception section of the film, the "Legacy" section for the character would fit in the "Aftermath and influence" section of the film, etc.   If done properly a Merge should neither ruin the structure of the existing White Zombie article nor make it overly long.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your reply.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:33, 21 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge