Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squeeky Kleen


 * 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, with no prejudice towards merging to parent article, if anything worth merging can be found. Jayjg (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Squeeky Kleen

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

non-notable, unsourced minor cartoon character from the 80s. Wikipedia is not a fansite.


 *   — as nom; it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 19:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 19:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Previously nominated diff but nom removed as incomplete. diff Jack Merridew 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * keep or merge to parent article which is only 12 kb long anyway. There will be commentary out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- as an unsourced rambling plot summary about a character from a minor 80s TV show. Consists of nothing but original research and editorial-style writing. Reyk  YO!  02:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Standard fictional biography that just needs to be referenced to the DVDs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete NO sufficient third person evidence to assert general notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Nothing worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * merge not a major character, if I have it right, and therefore should not get a separate article. But needs a section in a more general article, with a redirect. No reason given why a merge is inappropriate.    DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is nothing substantial to merge here, we do not merge material which violates WP:NOR policy.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 08:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue to improve or merge and redirect with edit history intact per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. No valid reason exists whatsoever for needing to redlink something that we can verify with a reliable source and that has on obvious redirect location: C.O.P.S..  At worst, we would merge the reference verifying the actor who plays the character to that cast list on the main page and no good faith editor would ever argue against improving the main article by merging a published book reference from this article to something that is presently not footnoted in the main article and certainly not when this article is neither a hoax nor libelous.  The character is notable in the fictional universe in that he is the yes man and personal servant of the main villain, i.e. is a recurring character seen over and over with the principal villain.  Now obviously this article matters to those who created and those who come here to read about.  Thus, per Editors matter, there is no reason why we would inconvenience these members of our community by not at worst merging the reference to the main article and leaving a redirect behind.  Because the source is from a published encyclopedia it is not original research and it actually is consistent with our First pillar of being not just a general encyclopedia, but also what you find in specialized encyclopedias.  The reality thus remains that this character has at least one reference from a reliable secondary source; he comes from a mainstream franchise that spawned toys, a cartoon, and comics; he was a major recurring character in that franchise; he is listed in a published, print encyclopedia; the edit history of the article is not libelous; a valid redirect location exists; we have at least one mergeable reference to that redirect location; etc.  Thus, per all of our policies and guidelines there is no reason nor need to delete anything and nothing that cannot be handled by usual editing of a talk page discussion or just being bolded and looking for sources first per WP:BEFORE (and actually adding any you find as I did) and then either starting a merge discussion on the talk page or being bold and merging and redirecting and then starting the merge discussion if the redirect is challenged.  We should in these instances approach things in such a reasonable manner as to 1) look for sources; 2) if we find any (as yes they do exist) proving it isn't made up or lies either incorporate them or if they are insufficient to source more than a sentence or two, then look for a merge or redirect location; 3) if being bold is challenged, then start a talk page discussion.  AfDs are for what we cannot source at all and what has no even debateable redirect location or for material that we must legally protect ourselves from.  But clearly in this case, we would be doing our project and readership alike a disservice by not at worst merging the sourced casting material to the main article and leaving behind the redirect.  And no reason exists why we would not at worst do just that.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A pile of cute essays does not override our WP:NOR policy dude.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 19:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside from WP:IAR and WP:SENSE, information cited from a reliable secondary source (a published encyclopedia verifies the actor who plays the character, for example) is not "original" research, and for the purpose of merging and redirecting, WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE does trump one abbreviated link that part of the article passes anyway. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to the show. The "published encyclopedia verifies the actor who plays the character" is the only reliable source that mentions this character at all, and that actor is listed in the main article. Otherwise the article consists of plot regurgitation with nothing to preserve. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Article looks fine, plenty of valid information which someone interested in the show and its characters would find interesting and useful to read. Wikipedia doesn't just exist to show things that some reviewer thought worthy of mention.  D r e a m Focus  14:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Who ordered the massacre of C.O.P.S. characters?  It is a bit amusing to step back and see how heated these deletion discussions about emphemera (but which some people care about) can be.  Looks like no consensus here, so i vote No consensus.  Is that possible?--Milowent (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or maybe merge-- no sign of independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Just as Dream Focus uses the same language to vote !keep in this AfD as he does in the Bowser and Blitz AfD, I will make a similar point. There is not only minimal reliable sourcing for conferring notability on this topic, such sourcing is nonexistent -- and nobody above appears to even dispute this. We have rules here, people. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  09:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge into character list. A notable enough character in a notable series is a suitable spin out article. As usual a route of less confrontational and thoughtful discussion should have preceded this but we're here now. There is a reasonable point that our readers may benefit from a reorganization where instead of one main and multiple individual character articles that a main article plus several supplemental articles combining many of the major characters and likewise for the minor characters. This would also be a useful suggestion for writing about fictional series if we are doling out suggestions for other editors. -- Banj e  b oi   13:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Define or defend "notable enough character" -- I haven't been able to find any evidence at all that this is the case. As for integrating into a character list, I am dubious about how doable this is, otherwise I would certainly support based on the character's verifiability. I don't think the COPS article should end up being 1MB long when every single character has to have its own epic "highlights" section, although I have no issue with incorporating a brief description of each character (which makes this less of a true merge, if you will). But, sure, by all means include some additional info on the characters in the COPS article. There has been some good faith discussion in that article's talk page about how to effectively merge the content. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:54, 13 March 2010 (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.