Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blacque Jacque Shellacque

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 merge to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blacque Jacque Shellacque[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure Looney Tunes character; article was initially redirected due to notability & sourcing concerns, however the character was also removed from the target article (List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters) for the same reason, so a redirect is confusing and offers no benefit to the reader. If notability and unsourced original research are the issues, I'm inclined to think that we should just delete instead.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

– PC78 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page should remain because the character was revived in both The Looney Tunes Show and New Looney Tunes, and thus has modern relevance. James Gordon (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unless sources are found. I could maybe see Rocky and Mugsy having some kind of potential, but that's based on absolutely nothing but my initial thought seeing their names. TTN (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete all per TTN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters per WP:HEY. I found two references which analyze the character in two different ways, one in terms of playing into the evil foreigner with facial hair trope, and another looking at morality tales as told to children (in this case the evils of being a thief). I also found that the character inspired a type of poker/blackjack hybrid game that has been published in a poker game book. This may not be enough for WP:SIGCOV on its own (others should comment), but it would fit nicely into the list article which needs referencing and expansion. If kept, unsourced material should be weeded out. I request that the nominator either close as merge, or re-list so others can have time to look at what I added to the article. @TTN: and @Erpert: please comment again, as the article has changed with added referencing and is no longer completely lacking sources.4meter4 (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Now, I would !vote merge Rocky and Mugsy to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters per 4meter4 but still delete the rest. The sources in Blacque Jacque Shellacque are either brief mentions about him or don't mention him at all; and as for Count Blood Count, well, aside from being a very, very minor character, the article has no sources and its tone is, frankly, laughable. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um... all of the sources in the article do mention Blacque Jacque Shellacque. I just researched them and added them. I didn't think it was really enough to warrant it's own article either, but it's certainly enough to be included in a list.4meter4 (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More than brief mentions? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they offer brief analysis, but are really not that substantial. Enough to warrant a merge to the list, but not necessarily an article. I'm still hoping to dig offline for references. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow an opportunity to evaluate the recently added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per 4meter4. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 13:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge per the above and the cursory glances done so far, I'd say. Might have some notability, but not standalone notability. Doug Mehus (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.