Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie Derkins (character)


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Susie Derkins (character)
I put a prod tag on this page, but it was removed, so I'm listing it here. As I said then, it's a "main article" branched off of Calvin and Hobbes which serves no useful purpose. Rather than being an encyclopaedia article, this page throws together a bunch of storylines from different strips. Massive copy-editing would be necessary to make the prose navigable. If we have to say more about Susie Derkins than the Calvin and Hobbes FA already says, this article isn't convincing me about it. Comic cruft about a great comic is still cruft. Anville 08:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and tidyup (which I've started). C&H article is quite big, 65kb, moving some content to individual pages is a good idea.  This approach already used by similar articles on The Simpsons, Futurama, The Flintstones, Charlie Brown. -- Oscar The Cat talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 08:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Oscarthecat. --Ter e nce Ong 08:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment We already have Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes to handle this. Anville 08:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it already exists, no reason to mess with it just now. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * keep per Oscarthecat. The secondary characters article seems to focus on very minor characters and Clavin's alter egos. Thatcher131 22:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Excessively long parent articles should be branched. Ikkyu2 00:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable character. --Billpg 11:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable and overall its a nicely done article. Tawker 22:28, 18 February 2006 (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.