Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratbert


 * 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ratbert

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

News search and book search brought up nothing, so this character is not noteworthy. Beerest355 Talk 01:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't know if there's enough to warrant a separate article, but I can't agree that the searches turn up "nothing".  In 1993, per The New York Times, Ratbert was part of an early experiment in making Dilbert an "interactive comic strip": "Ballots were cast via the Internet electronic mail system on this matter of public import: Should Dilbert, a cubicle-dwelling electrical engineer who works for a nameless bureaucracy, strike his pet rodent, Ratbert, with a rolled-up magazine? Or should Ratbert be spared in a blow against gratuitous violence?"   Other sources which GNews   tells us have at least a little about Ratbert (some of them paywalled, unfortunately): . --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think those sources discuss Ratbert in a real-world scenario, outside of the Dilbert comic strip. Beerest355 Talk


 * Keep: I was about to say "Merge and delete," but see Talk page context for article creation by consensus —Geoff Capp (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note the page that talk comes from: the main Dilbert article. That discussion was before List of Dilbert characters existed. Ratbert has himself a nice little paragraph there. It understandably wouldn't belong in the main Dilbert article, but on a list it's fine. Also, I'm not seeing a consensus there. One guy suggested it, some other guy started babbling, and then the suggestor began creating it. Beerest355 Talk 17:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources above demonstrate notability of character. Failing that, there's no reason a merge or redirect to the list of dilbert characters wouldn't be more appropriate than deletion, per WP:ATD, so there is no policy basis for the deletion nomination at all. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ... also the nomination is inaccurate on its face, as can be seen by clicking the 'news' link above--there are plenty of presumably RS'ed sources, many paywalled, that a proper Google News search would have turned up. Looks like a WP:BEFORE fail. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to character list. The present article is purely in-universe and hence completely worthless. Nothing in the google hits mentioned above constitutes in-depth treatment of the character as such, so there's no visible potential for useful expansion. Nothing salvagable here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It is sensible to keep this separate per the existing consensus and WP:SPLIT. Short articles are better suited to mobile devices and now the visual editor, which does not handle sections or large articles well.  Our format should follow modern trends per WP:NOTPAPER. Warden (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no existing consensus, and it's not as if this article could be condensed and redirect to the characters list. I don't see how new technology allows a free pass for this non-notable character. Beerest355 Talk 21:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Which non-notable character are you referencing? Notability is based on sources, which exist in abundance. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you even look at the sources? None of them are in-depth coverage of Ratbert. If you can find one, I's like to see it. Beerest355 Talk 13:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep A proposal to merge can be discussed elsewhere, but the subject clearly warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How?! I want to know why this fictional character with a lack of in-depth coverage deserves inclusion. He is rightfully included at the Dilbert character list but a stand-alone article has yet to be justified. Beerest355 Talk 02:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Other editors have already pointed you to wp:split and wp:notpaper. South Park is a very popular and long running series. Including coverage of the characters that populate its story lines seems reasonable. You might also want to review Merging. How would deleting this subject improve the encyclopedia? Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * South Park? Huh? Did you read the article? WP:SPLIT applies if a segment is growing out of proportion, which Ratbert's portion at List of Dilbert characters is definitely not. Note that WP:NOTPAPER is not a free pass for inclusion either. Deleting this article wouldn't bother anyone, as we could insert a redirect to Ratbert's segment. Beerest355 Talk 11:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's not because...this article exists? Also "it wouldn't bother anyone", if it isn't an argument to avoid, should be. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying "it wouldn't bother anyone" as a delete argument. I'm responding to the flimsy argument of "deleting it wouldn't improve the encyclopedia" which is basically WP:NOHARM. Beerest355 Talk 13:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - "Biographies" of in-universe characters like this are generally merged. Now where??? Carrite (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2013 (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.