Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pico (Newgrounds)


 * 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. -Docg 09:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Pico (Newgrounds)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I doubt whether this webcontent passes WP:WEB. Yes, the site itself is notable, but a character in its animations is not. Unsourced article of an in-universe nature, which does not make a case for passing WP:WEB. MER-C 08:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB and WP:FICT. There is nothing notable about this logo that is demonstrated by third party reliable sources, and certainly not all its variations. --Dhartung | Talk 10:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. The information here is sub-section for pertains to the Newgrounds article.  The info just isn't significant enough to warrant an separate article of its own.  But the fact that there is an article for Newgrounds, demonstrates some degree pertinence.  On its own, I would say delete, but it is part of a larger picture.  So I believe it should be truncated slightly and placed in the Newgrounds article.  If not, deletion would be the only other answer.  -- Jason Palpatine 10:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)  [[Image:confused-tpvgames.gif]] This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)
 * Merge As above, no need to add Jason's comments. Bjrobinson 12:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Don't care if it's merged, but it's completely unsuitable for a standalone article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (no merge). Violations of WP:NOT and WP:OR abound. --JianLi 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - While Pico is generally regarded as newgrounds mascot from what I know, unless the character himself has been the subject of verfiable non-trivial media coverage the wiki polcies are quite clear on what should happen. DarkSaber2k 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails to meet the usual Notability guidelines. Could be mentioned in the parent article though. -- lucasbfr talk 10:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep _ PLEASE! I LOVE THIS ARTICLE!!! KEEP IT! Superjustinbros. 18:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Masoct of a very ntable site, lots of good info... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanalp (talk • contribs)
 * Conditional Keep Being the icon of a notable flash website, it should at least have a certain degree of notability. The problem is to find proof. I managed to find at least one article mentioning Pico here:. There probably are at least a couple more external sites that mention Pico, and if those can be found and added to the article as External Links or inline refs, it can meet criterion 1 of WP:WEB.--Kylohk 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: A non-notable website logo.  ~ Magnus animuM  Brain Freeze!  19:07, 13 May 2007 (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.