Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Bravo (character)


 * 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. While the article urgently requires cleanup, original research is not in itself a reason for deletion. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Bravo (character)

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

This article contains unencyclopedic entries, so this thing should be deleted, don't you agree? Enco1984 (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note This editor had 15 edits when he put this article up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Absolutely nothing but in-universe plot summary and OR. Nothing even worth merging to Johnny Bravo. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 19:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – I agree that it's completely original research. The quotes are already listed in Wikiquote. Nearly all the information about Johnny himself is listed in the main article. The remainder is either in-universe trivia or otherwise original research as I have mentioned above. There was no reason for the character, which is the name of the cartoon itself, to be spun out of its own article. MuZemike 21:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely useless. There's nothing here at all to merge anywhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Main character in a significant work of fiction. Yes, the article needs to be trimmed somewhat, but a discussion of a characters role relative to the other characters is encyclopedic, and can be soured directly from the fiction. As for secondary sources, I suppose the nom. has made a comprehensive search, including print, for material from the period of the show, 1997-2004? Online sources are not consistently reliable especially for the earlier part of this period & one cannot conclude unsourceable for their absence. DGG (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we don't need personal interpretations of a children's cartoon show, thanks. Even if it were, the entirety of the show is the titular character's interaction with other characters, so any such interpretation belongs in Johnny Bravo.
 * Right now, there's absolutely zero content to merge. Potential content is irrelevant, because as this is the main character of the show who does not transcend the show, any such potential content belongs in Johnny Bravo. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As DGG said, it is a main character in a significant work of fiction. I believe policy is to fix an article if it needs work, not to simply erase it.   D r e a m Focus  02:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What work would you do on it? What work can you do on this that doesn't belong in Johnny Bravo? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think all that information would fit in the main article. I believe in preserving information which some would find useful or interesting.   D r e a m Focus  02:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Information such as? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Such as the information listed in the entire article. You shouldn't delete something, someone might want to read, simply because you don't like it.  There is no reason to delete it.   D r e a m Focus  03:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor should something be deleted because it overuses the letter F. Neither "I don't like it" (I love this cartoon) nor overuse of a consonant are anyone's reasons to delete this. Instead, it's redundant, poorly-written and utterly unsourced drek, laced with excessive quoting, arbitrary and cherrypicked lists of trivial factoids, and Made Up Shit. Nor is any article needed here; there's nothing to say about Johnny Bravo that isn't about Johnny Bravo, and there's not so much sourced content in Johnny Bravo that we need two articles.
 * You're right that it's better to fix an article than just delete it. How would you fix this? Not necessarily what sources you have immediately at hand, but potential sources. Can you suggest any? Can you suggest what they might say, what sort of topics they might discuss? If you can't propose some sort of sourced information that would go here and not in Johnny Bravo, cannot even conceive of any potential types of sourceable factual claims, what hope does this ever have of being an article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per MuZemike and AMIB. This atrocious article contains no content suitable for inclusion as it's entirely OR or trivia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Relevant information is already in the Johnny Bravo article. This article is just a trivial dumping ground that isn't suitable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is horrible as it stands, but topic meets inclusion guidelines. [] [] both have significant character information and the second has a lot of stuff about the character. Sources like  also provide a bit on the character.  Clearly enough for an article from RSes.   In general, main characters from highly notable series are notable.  Editorially a merge might make sense, but that should be for the talk page of the article, not here.  Hobit (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And those are both quite decent references for Johnny Bravo. Why would they go in some separate article?
 * Nobody's saying that this isn't notable; the argument is that it is not in any way a separate subject. This is a show about Johnny Bravo, and all of the characters exist as broadly-drawn one-joke characters from him to riff off of. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think part of the discussion is if the character meets notability guidelines. I think the above sources show that he does.  Organization of that material shouldn't fall under AfD's purview (in my opinion). I realize that's not everyone's opinion on the role of AfD.  But I generally only suggest merging an article if it can't stand on it's own per our notability/inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If Prince Hamlet were "23463wdfs ygxcbsdfgr52364 eryfgbdsfy3tewfdas a23qwrda", I wouldn't suggest merging it to Hamlet. This article has no more content useful for a merge to Johnny Bravo than random gibberish would have. The article content is useless. The article's potential is absolutely nothing that wouldn't better belong in Johnny Bravo. You can't merge potential. You don't need to save potential in an article history. There's nothing here to save.
 * Arguing to keep useless content under a title that isn't a separate article topic because of technicalities in what you feel constitutes AFD's purview strikes me as bureaucratic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A reasonable viewpoint. My argument is that AfD isn't for content disputes and that the decision to merge notable articles is a content dispute.  AfD decisions to merge tend to be taken much more strongly than a single editor's decision to merge. I assume that's due to the sense that AfD is commenting on the notability of the topics when closing with a merge result.  As that's not my intent (and not your either I guess) I think that !voting to merge is misleading in this case.  I guess a close of "merge for editorial reasons, not notability reasons" would take care of that, but I've never seen such a close. Hobit (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, "delete without prejudice" wouldn't really bother you? It seem your main concern is the precedent that no article can be written here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I dislike the idea of deleting an article due to its current content. I'd be fine with a huge "stubification".  But I do agree the current article has basically nothing to recommend it.  So removal of that content is fine.   And "delete without prejudice" would be a better result than merge (as I don't think there is anything worth merging at the moment) or a pure delete (as I think the topic could have a good article and meets WP:N).  Hobit (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You wish to delete it because you believe the content is garbage. Well, 99% of the stuff on the wikipedia someone considers to be fancruft, that doesn't mean the fans won't enjoy reading it.  I see nothing wrong with the article.  If you aren't interested in reading it, you don't have to.  No one ever finds an article without searching for it, and those who don't like it can easily hit the back button on their browser.   D r e a m Focus  21:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "23463wdfs ygxcbsdfgr52364 eryfgbdsfy3tewfdas a23qwrda" might interest someone too, but in the meantime we have applicable standards. We should have a properly-written article under a better title. With no content to save and a useless secondary title, this has nothing of value. By the way, you haven't answered the question I posed to you above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Dream Focus: though I'm a pretty strong inclusionist, that viewpoint is a bit excessive in my mind. What should limit what we do cover?  If there is too much stuff, our ability (and interest) in keeping out hoaxes and other false information goes down.  So we have inclusion and writing guidelines.  The article in question, as it stands, is a mess and there is no way to confirm if hardly any of it is true.  Once cleaned up this has the potential to be a good article.  So I think we should keep.  But not because someone might enjoy reading it. That would lead us to keeping massive amounts of unverifiable material.  I think WP:N is too strict and would prefer to default to WP:V as an inclusion guideline.  But that view doesn't (yet) have consensous, so we stick with WP:N.  Hobit (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is a about a main character of a major cartoon series, it seems to cover all his attributes. Though it needs more citations plus a cleanup. I suggest contacting someone involved from the show to make an accurate depiction of this character. Nevertheless, we should keep it for now.--Amerana (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve - Draeco (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as per above, as per these comments: "This article contains unencyclopedic entries, Absolutely nothing but in-universe plot summary and OR...I agree that it's completely original research...we don't need personal interpretations of a children's cartoon show" I once again quote: WP:INTROTODELETE & WP:POTENTIAL "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved."   Deletion policy: "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" Ikip (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Its potential is to become completely redundant with Johnny Bravo, instead of completely useless. This is a sideways move. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Redundant but not completely useless" is a reason for redirection, not deletion. DHowell (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. When someone writes an article that's redundant instead of completely useless, feel free to redirect it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I don't find the current article "completely useless", I won't. However, I probably wouldn't revert a redirect either, and if I have the time I might even see if there's anything worth merging from the edit history. I object to outright deletion, which effectively means I will not be allowed to examine the edit history (without begging an admin) to find anything worth merging. DHowell (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included on Johnny Bravo Ikip (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Not even the slightest inkling of sufficient notability to be found. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to main cartoon article. There's no need for a spinoff in this case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per DGG, Dream Focus and Amerana. EagleFan (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wholly constitutive of uncited plot descriptions and/or original research.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 09:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A major character of a notable cartoon series, and I was able to find sources to confirm some of the information. Sourcing the character's quotes is another matter though, since it originated from a television show. Userafw (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the sources are about the series as a whole, and would better fit in the series' article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He is a major fictional character, and any and all original research should be looked up and changed to... um... not original research. And, the nomination is incomplete... "so this thing should be deleted, don't you agree?" isn't exactly the best thing to have in a deletion nomination.--Unionhawk (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep very notable, well written mostly. Needs improvement but it's daft to get rid of an article like this. Me lkjhgfdsa (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep without prejudice to a merge or redirect, which should be decided elsewhere. There is at least some sourced content here and redundancy is not a good reason to delete, see WP:DEL. Are people really unable to distinguish an article like this from meaningless gibberish like "23463wdfs ygxcbsdfgr52364 eryfgbdsfy3tewfdas a23qwrda"? Also, plain description of primary source content (as opposed to subjective interpretation) is not original research, despite tortured claims to the contrary. DHowell (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's no more useful to that article than "23463wdfs ygxcbsdfgr52364 eryfgbdsfy3tewfdas a23qwrda", as it's trite, excessively detailed subjective interpretation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Trite" and "excessively detailed" are your personal opinions (unlike the undeniable fact that random gibberish is random gibberish, unless it's some sort of encryption); and not everything in the article is "subjective interpretation". DHowell (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you can answer the question I posed to DreamFocus above. What not-sourced-to-Fluffikins content can you put in this article that doesn't belong in the main article? If the answer is nothing, all this will ever be is redundant, excessive detail. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not until you can answer a couple questions of my own: (1) Who or what the hell is "Fluffikins"? (2) What kind of content would you accept as belonging in an article about the character and not in an article about the series? Be specific. DHowell (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thought I'd used that analogy already. This is cat sourced entirely to someone's housecat, Fluffikins.
 * As for what would justify a standalone article for this character? So much sourced information that it cannot fit anywhere but in a separate article from Johnny Bravo, or some sort of commentary on this character that was not simply about the series he appears in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone's housecat is not a published source. And even if it was, about all you could say about it without using any other sources is that there is an animal with four legs and fur of a particular color scheme that makes a sound resembling the word "meow", and other things which may or may not apply to other cats. On the other hand Johnny Bravo is a published source, even available on DVD, so anyone can verify descriptive information about the characters portrayed using this primary published source.
 * As far as "commentary on this character that was not simply about the series he appears in", do you mean like the information in this article, for example? DHowell (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Johnny Bravo is the article subject, and we don't observe subjects to write articles on them. As for that article, it's about the animation and marketing of a retool of Johnny Bravo. It might even be useful for a spinoff article JBVO, but it isn't about this character as a separate subject from the single show he appears in. - A Man In Bl♟ck  (conspire - past ops) 01:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: contains original research and trivial non-notable information. JamesBurns (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is easily fixed through copyediting. No need for AfD. Ikip (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless there is no hope for any content that isn't such. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect Original research, in-universe style article that is indeed excessively detailed for an encyclopedia. Just because he's a lead fictional character doesn't mean he deserves his own article.  Notability isn't inherited here. This would be much more suitable under the main show's article.  It's time to make this a serious encyclopedia and get rid of all this uncited original research and condense the most useful and notable information into the article about the show.  The DRV of the list of units in the age of mythology series just closed with the closer acknowledging that the "scale and level of detail of the original list is considered beyond the encyclopedia's scope" and I believe a similiar comparison can be made to this article, especially when the broad scope is based on original research.  Themfromspace (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Major character that should be improved, not deleted. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The character is functionally identical to the program, and vice versa, and nothing here is worth merging.  Powers T 14:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As Power said above, the character and series are more or less identical. Everything that's covered in here, could easily be covered in the main article.--Sloane (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, he is the main character of a popular cartoon. There are references and it is notable.Smallman12q (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep.  EagleFan (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note. This is EagleFan's second !vote. One, Two. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:52, 25 February 2009 (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.