Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult themes and the Scooby Gang

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Scooby-Doo. Redirect is necessary to preserve edit history for GFDL. Deathphoenix 19:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adult themes and the Scooby Gang
Should be merged into Scooby-Doo and then no redirect. Thought I'd ask for a consensus since this isn't clear cut. --Woohookitty 23:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Information: The content of the article was originally a subsection contained within the article Scooby-Doo. On 7-JUL-2004, Marcus2 cut the adult themes section out and placed it into the separate article. I have invited Marcus2 to come to this discussion and explain his reasons for doing so, since this discussion is essentially about undoing his work. Kevyn 03:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No objection to merging into the Scooby-Doo article, as it could be legitimately be a subsection of the main article. Full disclosure: I am a major contributor to the article -- I am convinced that Velma is a lesbian, and Johnny Bravo is just a beard. Kevyn 00:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment How/why is Velma a lesbian? She's a cartoon character for a Saturday monring cartoon, for crying out loud! --b. Touch 03:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Scooby-Doo and Delete. Zzyzx11 00:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete as above. No redirect needed since I doubt anyone will type this particular header into the search engine. The subject matter is widely debated and worthy of being mentioned, though be cautious of POV. 23skidoo 00:59, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although this is not supposed to be a strictly 'family friendly' site, there is something to be said for segregating discussion of adult themes (which in this case border on fanfic) from the main content of the article. But do add something about the theory that Scrappy-Doo is the illegitimate child of Scooby and Velma. --BD2412 01:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea of segregating adult themes -- especially on an article about a childrens' cartoon -- had ocurred to me when I first responded to Woohookitty's adding this to VfD. (I suspect it was probably one of the reasons the article was created separately in the first place, before I started adding to it.) That is, I believe, the only possible reason for not merging here, and I'm not convinced it's a strong enough reason. Especially if the section on adult themes is treated encyclopedically. Kevyn 02:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and link from the article about Scooby Gang (see BD2412's comment) Tygar 02:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you guys do vote for keep, do we at least agree to change the name? I think "Adult Themes in Scooby Doo" or "Hidden Themes in Scooby Doo" are better titles...and much more likely to be searched for. --Woohookitty 02:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 *  If  the vote is to keep, then I concur with the change in name... personally I like "Adult Themes in Scooby Doo" better, but this is relevant only if the vote is to keep. Kevyn 03:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with the name change (although if linked from the Scooby article the name is not as important). --BD2412 04:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge back to the main article. It's really just fan-fic type speculation--nixie 04:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * either Keep or merge. What if Daphne is a lipstick lesbian? Why is Shaggy called Shaggy? Tune in next time for another edition of Scooby Scooby-Doo!! Megan1967 06:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep separate from the main article so kids can avoid it more easily if they want to. Kappa 08:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. WP does not censor for age categories. (see WP:WIN) Radiant! 09:02, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yeah if we start separating articles based on age, that is one massive slippery slope. --Woohookitty 09:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur. Also, I had forgotten about the specific policy relevant to this: What Wikipedia is Not: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors.  Kevyn 18:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but censorship would be deleting the article altogether - having a separate article linked to the original page is hardly in the same category - more like segregation of material that (at least arguably) stands on its own as an article anyway. --BD2412 19:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I cut this article from the main Scooby-Doo article because it is irrelevant to article as a whole and it had taken too much space in the article. Marcus2 19:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well since I don't think we're going to find a consensus, I think renaming might be the best thing to do once the 5-6 days have passed. I always love how minor things become life or death on Wikipedia. :) --Woohookitty 19:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to buck the trend and argue to delete this as unverifiable speculation about fictional characters. The fact that a lot of kids made similar guesses does not make them any less speculative.  The few bits that are verifiable and encyclopedic should be discussed in the main article.  Rossami (talk) 23:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Delete; do not merge. While Wikipedia is not and should not be censored for minors, this is inappropriate content for an article on a major children's television show. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 09:18, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's amusing, but right now it looks like a mix of original research and idle speculation.  Do we have sources for the interpretations assigned to the in-show events?  Sourced comments from the series creators?  Outraged press releases from Christian fundamentalists?  If there is supporting documentation, then we should keep this article (with an appropriate link from Scooby-Doo). Otherwise, it's just a glorified Scooby-Doo fan forum post.  --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The phenomena of reading adult subtexts into Scooby-Doo is indeed a verifiable pop culture phenomena, and a very widespread one at that. It is encyclopedic and should be covered. Here are some verifiable sources:
 * Google search for "Scooby" + "drug" returns 97,000 matches. A large number of these are joke explanations of the adult themes in Scooby, conservative bloggers decrying the moral problems of Scooby, or stoner sites celebrating the Scooby drug culture.
 * Nostalgia Central starts off it's review of Scooby-Doo with the following sentence: "Let's get one thing straight: Drugs! This show is about drugs, conceived by people on drugs, written by people on drugs and mostly watched by people on drugs."
 * Scooby-Doo Movie Drops Drug Subtext The Associated Press ran a story in 2002 on the new Scooby-Doo movie and how the filmmakers were intentionally toning down the TV show's adult themes for the big screen.
 * Entertainment Insider's DVD review of the complete first and second seasons of the TV show (1969) talks at length about the show's subtext.
 * The phenomena is so widespread and recognizable in pop culture that Kevin Smith was able to parody it in his 2003 film, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back
 * So does the article need to be re-written to be more encyclopedic, with verifiable sources? Yes, I think it does. I will volunteer to do that, once a decision is made as to where the article is going: Is it going to be a subsection of Scooby-Doo, or will it be a separate article? Kevyn 17:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say Merge. I'm not too sold on keeping this subarticle seperate from the main one, and I made the Scooby-Doo article shorter on purpose (by moving the info on the various versions of the show to Scooby-Doo series guide) so that more information about the show could be listed here. --b. Touch 03:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. While interesting and valid, this information is not important enough for its own article. Psychonaut 03:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.