Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tintin and Snowy


 * 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 redirect and preserve the edit history. Nom withdrawn, Non admin closure Edgepedia (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Tintin and Snowy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article Tintin and Snowy was split quite a while ago into the two articles Tintin (character) and Snowy (character), and apparently no one ever went back to delete this article. It is now a duplication of those other two articles within the project. —Prhartcom  (talk)  20:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have checked the "what links here" and it appears to be only Wikipedia pages and user talk pages, no articles. —Prhartcom   (talk)  20:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Tintin's FA: The Adventures of Tintin (in its Characters section) has been showing links to the new Tintin (character) article and the new Snowy (character) article ever since it was split: . Same situation in the List of The Adventures of Tintin characters article:.
 * The old original article, the one we are considering for deletion, is curantly an orphan (WP:O). Occasionally, and at a low frequency, some unfortunate editors try to improve the old orphaned article. The two new articles are improved at a high frequency. —Prhartcom   (talk)  00:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is well-written and sourced and the topic is notable - see Tintin and Snowy, for example. Warden (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Colonel, yes, certainly we agree about all three of those things. But read closely what I stated above: This article was spit into two new articles quite a while ago, each of which—if combined—contain all the text and sources of the original article, each of which are well-written, sourced, notable—all those things you like. The old original is a duplicate of the two new articles, word-for-word (not counting the edits made to the two new articles since). Not sure why the people who split it (you can still read some of their discussion) did not go back and clean up after themselves, but we can do so now. Do you understand why we should delete the old Tintin and Snowy article? —Prhartcom   (talk)  22:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If content was taken from this article to make those other articles, then we must keep this one to preserve the edit history and attributions. Having this one focus on the relationship between the two characters would be a sensible way forward.  Warden (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Warden, bear with me here. WP:PRESERVE is not a guideline to excuse editors from cleaning up after themselves after splitting an article into two new articles. And your statement that the original article "focuses on the relationship between the two characters" is silly and shows you have not yet glanced the articles we are discussing (the two character's relationship is there in the two new articles). We simply have a situation in which content is duplicated; nothing will be lost by removing the duplication. We've said enough for the moment; let's let some other more sensible editors have a go.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  22:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We would lose the attributions which are not optional but a legal requirement. WP:SPLIT says, "It is a requirement of Wikipedia's licensing that attribution be given to the original author(s), and deletion of that content should be avoided.".  The attribution appears in the edit summaries made when the split was performed here: "Split content from Tintin and Snowy.".  Deletion of this article would break this attribution link and that is not allowed. Warden (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The root guideline is WP:Copying within Wikipedia. I've placed Copieds to track the copied content. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Jesus christ, how is this possibly being debated? This article on two characters has been split into two, with one for each. This one is no longer needed, plain and simple. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You fail to address the licensing issue. Warden (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you simply make it a redirect to the series page. You really do like to make a lot of red tape to stop deletions, which is surprising from someone who I've seen try to argue that WP: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is a reasonable excuse to ignore legitimate copyright issues.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect, as per Yaksar to The Adventures of Tintin, or even more specifically to The Adventures of Tintin. --Lambiam 09:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thank-you, Yaksar and Lambiam; quite sensible. At the end of the discussion period we should replace the text of the Tintin and Snowy article with a redirect to The Adventures of Tintin.
 * Colonel Warden, you were quite right when you stated the edit history must be preserved; thank-you for pointing that out; I'm glad we will be able to preserve it. You were something else entirely when you stated things like the duplicate article is "well-written and sourced and the topic is notable" and that not deleting it in order to "focus on the relationship between the two characters would be a sensible way forward." My emphatic suggestion to you next time is to have a look at the article before making a recommendation, as you are required to do.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  13:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As the nominator has effectively withdrawn the nomination, and Yaksar has replaced the original Delete recommendation by Merge, this discussion can now be closed by any uninvolved editor with a Speedy keep. --Lambiam 19:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Adventures of Tintin per Lambiam. I'm not sure why the article was recreated in, but we can try to establish a consensus for the redirect here. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2011 (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.