Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babs and Buster Bunny


 * 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. No prejudice against separate re-nomination.'''. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Babs and Buster Bunny

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable characters, no out-of-universe info, too many fair use images and trivia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for the above noted reasons. I would be open, however, to merging all of these into a "characters of" article. Trusilver  17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just merge all Tiny Toon characters into Tiny Toon Adventures. If the article gets too large, just make a "List of characters in Tiny Toon Adventures". Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's almost nothing to merge besides maybe one or two sentences. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * how is that an argument against merging what there is to merge? DGG (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He does have a point. Most of these articles have at most, one paragraph of useful information about the character. The rest is just original research, speculation, and personal opinion passing off as fact. Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Reject nomination altogether as invalid group nomination Nominator, please see  This was a non consensus keep that closed yesterday, with 2 keep, 2 merge, and nobody but the nom. saying delete. Is renominating this just carelessness?  I point out that "too many fair use images" is not a reason for deletion. It's a reason for discussing the images. similarly  inclusion of trivia is not a reason for deletion, but a reason for discussing the content. Most important, these are characters of different importance, so it is not a vlid group nomination. Bookworm is a supporting character; Babs and Buster are the stars. DGG (talk)    17:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh noes! Keep in mind that you're just referencing one recently-AFD article. Not that I don't disagree on everything else, though. MuZemike  ( talk ) 19:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge all into a characters of list, where everything can be verified properly. I also echo DGG that a crapload of fair use images is not a reason for deletion, while the trivia is a copyediting issue. However, once that's all said and done, I believe that there wouldn't be much left, unless someone is willing to spend the time and expand the article properly, at which point the characters can be spun back out if needed. MuZemike  ( talk ) 19:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reject nomination, but Keep and Merge if AfD continues: Reject grouping of list of characters per DGG. Marquee characters (those specifically mentioned in show's theme song) lumped together with supporting characters needs to be discussed independently.  Keep characters listed under "Major characters" in Tiny Toon Adventures.  Merge those listed as "Supporting characters". -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Move into List These should be moved into a "characters of" list as per MuZemike. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all- these articles are badly sourced, consist of too much fan speculation and are way too long per WP:WEIGHT. I'd support a merge, but note that these characters are already covered in sufficient and appropriate detail at Tiny Toon Adventures so there would be nothing left for a merge to accomplish. I say delete, and then reinstate them as redirects to Tiny Toon Adventures. Reyk  YO!  20:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy procedural close as improper group nomination. As indicated above at least one of the articles passed AFD with a Keep decision TODAY. No prejudice against separate renomination, but the fact at least one has passed AFD recent renders the entire nomination null and void, and this should be tried again. 23skidoo (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ah yes, because addressing each character individually and being left with half getting deleted and the other half remaining would be soooooooooooo much more intelligent. The idea of closing this and doing this piecemeal is ridiculous. Trusilver  07:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Tiny Toon Adventures or a character list. In-universe style and excessive fair-use images are not reasons for deletion in and of themselves. Since few or no sources are likely available to verify any out-of-universe relevance, these articles should not stand alone. While Tiny Toon Adventures itself has made an impact outside its fictional universe, its individual characters likely have not. Excessive fair use merits removal of the offending media, not deletion of the article. (If this AfD is closed on procedural grounds, it won't bother me in the least bit.) szyslak  ( t ) 20:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Nothing to merge here but a bunch of non-free images we're better off without.  The characters are covered in sufficient detail in the main article.   Hi DrNick ! 23:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect/delete, with no prejudice against recreation if the new articles are decently sourced and written per WP:RS and WP:WAF. The articles are just bad, but I expect them to be notable as a group. (Delete because it may be easier to start new then to find the mergeable bits, and since the main article already has short descriptions.) – sgeureka t•c 09:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep at least one was just closed as keep. Immediately re-nominating solves nothing and achieves nothing. Suggest discussing on the talk pages for merging and/or re-directing rather than endless AfDs. StarM  19:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * NOTE I've just reverted the re-direct of Dizzy Devil, the AfD is active and it should not be re-directed during the AfD. Let there be consensus first to merge before that's done. I am not, however, going to edit war over it StarM  19:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect or delete all - None of these establish any sort of notability. These are very simple cartoon characters, so merging them to a list is unnecessary. They have very basic personalities that can be described in a sentence or two. Any further information is just junk. TTN (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * care to explain why simple characters cant have much written about them? or why any further information must inherently be junk? or why the study of cartoons can not be a valid academic study, or, more important, even if you personally think it is not, why that proves conclusively that everyone else things it's worthless also? clear case of IDONTLIKEIT. as it happens, I don't think all that highly of the genre either, but then I probably dislike most of the fiction with wp articles--which is different from disliking that there should be articles on them.  DGG (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They're simple; that's really all there is in this case. Anything else is either going to be original research (much of these articles), unnecessary plot summary that can be found within the episode list, or other completely unnecessary junk. It's not like it's going to be the same with every character in existence, but most common children's cartoon characters are not going to require much space at all. Bugs Bunny is also just a simple as these characters, but it obviously has real world importance to require more than a basic description. TTN (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and close - most all of these are likely search terms, and could be redirected to the main TT article without requiring an AFD per WP:BEFORE. Neier (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to the Tiny Toons article and trim the excessive fictional overview. Surely they belong on here somewhere, but if Buster and Babs aren't notable enough to have their own article, none of the others would be; and B&B are not discussed as characters as much as Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck or any other truely notable cartoon character.  A list of Tiny Toons characters might also be considered, though it would have to be shown that the characters as a bundle are notable.  This is what special interest fan-based wiki's are for. Themfromspace (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't delete these pages for main characters, you could delete the minor characters, just don't delete the main, because there's a ton of information. Cartoonbook (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep all And clean-up as needed. I was ready to suggest create a list article as merging to Tiny Toon Adventures is rather pointless as that article is already huge. But then I looked at the articles themselves. They are reasonably well-written and organized, they come off as somewhat encyclopedic needing no huge amount of work that a bit of regular editing won't cover. The characters are enlivened by experienced voice actors who are notable and the series itself is notable, many of these are the main characters of the series as well. All the content seems to be coherent and non-sensational so I assume good faith it is source-able to the original episodes. I guess I'm not seeing why Wikipedia is somehow worse off for having this content. In fact, I think we're handling it pretty well and this is exactly where Wikipedia excels. Do I care one tittle about Babs and Buster Bunny? Not terribly. But some of our readers do - just as some are absolutely absorbed by distant stars, every episode of the Simpsons and any number of animals I've also never heard of. And for those who seek knowledge Wikipedia has a generally good article to help explain the subject and step the reader into greater understanding. Leave the menagerie of critters be and let's encourage the editors to expand the horizons of the articles so our readers can truly benefit from what we have to offer. -- Banj e  b oi   13:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't Tiny Toon Adventures one of several related series, so that some of its characters also appear on Animaniacs? Elmyra is also a main character of the crossover Pinky, Elmyra & the Brain and currently, her article includes information about that show (including the existence of Rudy, Elmyra's "crush" throughout it) that I find important to it, but that its own article does not include (though I would like to add it, and List of Pinky, Elmyra & the Brain episodes includes some but not all of it). The section about the Duffs might also describe a planned but not realized spinoff. Other TTA characters also appear in a spinoff with its own article, The Plucky Duck Show, though I don't know to what extent that is considered separate from TTA. --Kletta (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into a characters list, but possibly keep separate the articles on the most important characters. Everyking (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep all and trout slap the nominator for not doing a reasonable search for sources, nor discussing the possibility of a merge, before running straight to AfD. Babs & Buster, at least, are covered in the book Reading the Rabbit: Explorations in Warner Bros. Animation. Coverage for all these characters can be probably be found in sources as well, but five days is not enough time to research all of them. DHowell (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per reasons mostly covered above. - jc37 15:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. At least some of the characters are notable; please renominate those that aren't separately. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge into a list of characters. Perhaps individually falling below the bar for notability, but there's not really a good reason to eliminate the information altogether.  Individual entries can be spun back out of the list with the procurement of good sources, which I am certain exist for at least a few of these characters.  Ford MF (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge all to Tiny Toon Adventures. McWomble (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The articles include lots of useful info. The original research is very good and will eventually have references. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.