Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doonesbury Icons


 * 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   '''Delete. ''' The essential information in this article is all ready present at the most commonly proposed target article. The additional information is unsourced. I'm happy to userfy for anyone interested in working on this in user space. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Doonesbury Icons

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

Excessive plot detail and original research. No merge is necessary, as whatever material has merit is already at Doonesbury. Contested PROD.  Sandstein  12:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge the material offers some insights into the choices behind the political character stand-ins, but nothing that couldn't do with a condensation and merging into the main article. JuJube (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of characters in Doonesbury. (Emperor (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC))
 * Merge everything that is sourced and referenced. In other words, delete. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * delete. Merging unsources material would severely damage the target article, why would anyone want to do that?Yobmod (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  14:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Redundant information. Doonesbury is a political strip, of course they'll use "icons". Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article refers more to the practice of using floating inanimate objects that can speak in place of political figures. JuJube (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge - most of the content seems to be reasonable; whether it has an article to itself or not is not something I have a strong opinion on. As with most articles, it needs sourcing better, but I don't think it wants getting rid of. Pseudomonas(talk) 19:24, 17 October 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.