Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oucho the Cactus


 * 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 on hold, AKA keep for now. Since we're trying to clear the AfD backlog, and as a result of the injunction, I'm closing this for now. By all means, when the injunction is lifted, you're free to re-nom this for deletion or be bold and merge/redirect the article yourself. I encourage the continuation of discussion on the talk page of the article. Wizardman 03:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oucho the Cactus

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

Contested prod. Non-notable fictional character, doesn't merit stand-alone article. No sources aside from CBBC web site generic link. Borders on fancruft. Information would be better included in the CBBC article, or the Ed Petrie article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: The outcome of this debate will not be put into effect until this Halt to activities concerning TV characters is settled. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  15:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - exactly the reason I prodded it to start with. Talk Islander 15:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ed Petrie. So far as the CBBC viewers are concerned, Oucho and Petrie go together like Kukla, Fran & Ollie or Sherry & Lambchop or Edgar & Charlie.  Mandsford (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: As a television character, doesn't this AfD fall under the ArbComm injunction? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not up on that. Can you supply a link to a relevant page, please? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto that... Talk Islander 23:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What he's referring to is something called Halt to activities; the powers that be decided to have a discussion about guidelines for TV episodes and TV show characters; the administrators are to hold off on ruling "keep" or "delete" until a decision is made. So yes, there's an injunction; no, it doesn't stop you from commenting on this nomination. Mandsford (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We'll stand by while the issue is settled. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  00:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going with a merge and redirect here to the show in general, based on what I'm seeing. The "cruft" argument, to defer to the arbcomm issue, doesn't sit well with me (and never has) - but somewhere maybe some of this should be preserved.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per current ArbCom injunction. Why are these AFDs kept open longer than a minute or two? The ArbCom injunction does not allow any outcome except keep. -- Willow Wait  ( talk ) 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that's incorrect. The injunction does not dictate that the only outcome of an AfD like this is to keep, but that no action on an involved AfD shall take effect until the issue involving the injunction is resolved. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:09, 20 February 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.