This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Cartoon Network on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cartoon NetworkWikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkTemplate:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkCartoon Network articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
As the notice above says, the result of the afd was keep. AMAB chose to disregard it and revert--he is conceivably justified in doing so by WP:BRD. But the redirection was reverted, and, again according to BRD, the next step is to discuss. But AMAB did not discuss--but reverted right back again. I've dealt with it for the moment by re-reverting. To follow BRD one must if reverted discuss. If not, in a situation like this, it is either editwarring or attempting to pervert process. There is a conceivable argument for his redirecting --there is none for his continuing to do so without discussion.
The start of the discussion is the arguments at the AfD. To repeat what I said there, "Main character in a significant work of fiction. Yes, the article needs to be trimmed somewhat, but a discussion of a characters role relative to the other characters is encyclopedic, and can be soured directly from the fiction." DGG (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On work of fiction, from which this character is inextricable. Plus, that article isn't so long it needs to be split. The best place to discuss how Johnny Bravo interacts with the other characters of Johnny Bravo is the Johnny Bravo article, since the entirety of Johnny Bravo is Johnny Bravo interacting with the other characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AMIB and support the redirect. This doesn't need its own article. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG is correct. Thet article should be improved and not redirected as it is an appropriate spinout article concerning a titular character. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So. Where's a sourced statement, or any statement, that you can make about this character that isn't about Johnny Bravo? That article isn't so long that it needs spinoffs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not opposed to a disambiguation page that takes into account that the character name appears as two separate characters in two separate works of fiction. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support a merge. If sufficient content is built there to warrant a substantial article for the character alone, then we can break one out. Until then, leave the paltry material here centralized to the show. ThuranX (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much agree with the above, the article can be resplit out when the character section in the main article gets overly burdensome. Themfromspace (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support a merger. The four sourced statements as a whole are pretty weak for a separate article, and can be incorporated seemlessly with the main article. I see no reason for a stand-alone article at this time. – sgeurekat•c 09:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge as well. No reason for a independent article here. Eusebeus (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't see a problem with either solution at this time. That said, it's plain that long-term there is plenty to require a spin-out article on JB. But for now, I really don't think there is. So I'd say merge for now, unmerge when the parent article needs to spinout.Hobit (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
