Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Brutananadilewski (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to Adult Swim. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Carl Brutananadilewski
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was turned into a redirect as the result of an AfD back in 2011, and nothing has changed since back then. Should be a redirect, but you have an editor who doesn't agree with the prior AfD insisting on re-creating the article. So the article should now be deleted, and then a redirect created to prevent spurious re-creation in the future.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 17:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect My analysis is the same as Onel's and so this should be a delete first and then redirect, not just a redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - as a major character from a long-running series he is sure to have notability. The article really just needs a good re-write.
 * Also, saying that "nothing has changed" since 2011 is a pretty bold claim, considering that the version that was nominated then featured 20 less viable sources then it does now, as well as 3 less out-of-universe sections then it does now. Grapesoda22  (✉) 04:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION. Such original research based on primary sources is fine for wikia, but we require more. The character does not seem to have been a subject of anything but briefest mentions in passing in other sources. No in-depth coverage. Trivia-level. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect as per nom. Not notable outside of ATHF. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep since Carl is one of the central characters of the show (and a long-running one, at that), and simply just clean up and rewrite the article. IceWalrus236 (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above - a notable character from a very notable show. The page does need a bit of rewriting to add more sources, but it should stay. Paintspot Infez (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Adult Swim since subject does not possess significant and independent Wikinotability. It's interesting that no evidence to the contrary is presented in this discussion. I also watch the show but that's not relevant. -The Gnome (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete & Redirect - Virtually none of the references being used can be considered reliable, secondary sources. While its easy to find hits with the character's name on searches, it has not been demonstrated that any of these can be used to establish independent notability for the character.  Rorshacma (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect - I don't see a case for content deletion here. If anything was merged from here (and I see a couple of sentences worth merging at the very least), it would cause a licencing problem. Why not full protect instead?  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  19:35, 1 May 2019 (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.