Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jeff Dunham puppets


 * 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   merge to Jeff Dunham. Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Jeff Dunham puppets

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

This topic is apparently too trivial to be covered in the main article, so it has been split out to sit forever. It doesn't establish any sort of notability and it is completely trivial. TTN (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge back to Jeff Dunham Puppets are a key subject with regards to a ventriloquist, hardly trivial. Since there are no space issues in the original article, I see no good reason to split it out and I don't see a reason to delete either. - Mgm|(talk) 00:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, split offs that - if done well - don't need to show independent notability, because a good split off article wouldn't be independent of the main article to begin with. It would need to be notable in context. - Mgm|(talk) 00:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, plus there are severe verifiability issues here. Creating a list is not an end run around our verifiability policies.  If this hasn't been covered by reliable third party sources then we should not be covering it either.  We're an encyclopedia, WP:NOT a primary source of information, damnit.  JBsupreme (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Move the article back into Jeff Dunham. The puppets are important because without them Dunham isn't notable, but the puppets themselves aren't notable enough for their own article on trivial facts. Aiuw 00:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Jeff Dunham. Sufficient reliable source coverage is shown in a Google News Archvie search. However, the two articles are small enough that merging would not result in any issues with WP:SIZE. DHowell (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep i made a huge edit, i copied and pasted history. Hope that's not braking any rules. Solar Flute (talk)
 * Its breaking the WP:NOR rule. Please cite valid third party sources.  We are not a publisher of primary research.  JBsupreme (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Jeff Dunham. Not enough material in both to warrant a split. The puppets are not notable by themselves.--Boffob (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge, but this isn't the place to decide which. This is the place to decide ifthe material should be deleted, which does not seem appropriate. DGG (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, this material is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Due to the lack of third party sources.  JBsupreme (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge per DHowell. Juzhong (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Jeff Dunham per WP:SIZE and no independent notability. 3,793 + 5,220 bytes is way below the recommended "May need to be divided" 30 KB level. – sgeureka t•c 09:08, 15 December 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.