Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Duck Dong

Long Duck Dong (now Long Duk Dong) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge into Sixteen Candles and redirect

This page is just a stub (not marked as a stub) describing some minor character in an old movie along with the offensive racial stereotypes exhibited by this particular minor character. There's no reason for this entry to exist. If the material is to be included it should be moved to Sixteen Candles. Ntk 21:50, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Describing Long Duk Dong as "some minor character" is absurd, and Sixteen Candles is not just "an old movie"; it is constantly shown on television today.  The "offensive racial stereotype" in question is even more reason to keep this article as it is frequently dicussed, and complained of by Asians as one of the chief examples of such stereotyping, something that could be much more fully developed.  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:08, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete, since I doubt a redirect is necessary. Not that there's much to merge. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 22:06, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interesting that this is the only character from the movie any one has seen fit to right an article about. I guess it shows the power of the word "dong". Dsmdgold 03:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand or at the very least merge and redirect to Sixteen Candles. How can you delete the Donger? -- Netoholic @ 06:19, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
 * I also should point out that being a "poor quality article" is not grounds for deletion. Please review the the guidelines before submitting in the future. -- Netoholic @ 06:25, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
 * I thought I made it pretty clear that the reason was not that this article was badly written (which it is), but that it is completely non-notable, which is reason most of the articles on this page get deleted. Under the guidelines you linked to I would say that this article fits under "no potential to become encyclopedic."  This movie may be an obscure cult classic, but I think there's a consensus that not every minor character in every movie ever made deserves their own article.  There's clearly not much content to be written about this character and what there is can easily be folded into Sixteen Candles. Ntk 20:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The movie is not "an obscure cult classic." Practically everyone who was a teenager in its era has seen it, and many more besides due to its constant screenings on weekend television.  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:08, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The only people who can find it obscure or old...are seven-year-olds in Nepal. Mike H 02:07, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Sixteen Candles, which is a cult classic, by the way. Entirely plausible that a reader might type in "Long Duck Dong", looking for this exact thing. &bull; Benc &bull; 06:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I merged it and make Long Duk Dong a redirect. If you wanna, you can delete it.  Too bad we can't redirect to a section of an article.   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 18:34, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've merged it again, redirected to the section. -- user:zanimum
 * Merge/redirect to Sixteen Candles - let's save the breaking out of characters into individual articles until the article on the movie is a bit fuller, eh? &mdash;Stormie 00:21, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.