Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy) (2nd nomination)

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy)

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

Non-notable character. JJ98 (Talk) 16:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 17:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a Major Character on a Major children's television show on a Major childrens network. Hardly non-notable. I'm surprised it was nominated for deletion once let alone again. As a quote from the last AfD:

Keep. I mean, c'mon. Jimmy Neutron has one. Spongebob Squarepants has one. Why not Ed?
— 989 RVD

It also meets WP:FICT. Bailo26 17:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the series is unquestionably notable, that doesn't mean that the individual characters, including the title characters, are independently notable. There needs to be significant coverage of the character in reliable sources. WP:FICT does not exempt the article from WP:GNG. I am not finding such sources that address this character specifically and indeed the article is completely unreferenced except to primary sources. The existence of similar articles for other fictional characters does not argue for the existence of this one. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When this articles subject was up for deletion the last time it was a snow keep basically. so dont see how a character can go from notable to non-notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. JJ98 (Talk) 22:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your argument is invalid in this particular situation and has absolutely nothing to do with BabbaQ's statement that i can see. I don't know if you've actually read the Deletion of articles section of WP:OSE but i suggest you re/read it. Particularly this section which states:

WP:OSE: —
Another contributor may respond simply by saying that just because other stuff exists does not mean that the article in question should be kept. While perhaps a legitimate response, the automatic dismissal of such a statement is just as lacking in rationale and thus the second user has provided no reason to delete the article.

I do not mean to get into an argument, I just cannot see how you can write a response simply stating that other stuff exists. It makes little or no sense to me. Bailo26 22:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I notice that, there a bunch of non-notable characters from the television series, for example, I've nominated Brock Samson, Doctor Thaddeus Venture and rest of The Venture Bros. characters for deletion due lack of sources and notability. See WP:GNG and WP:WAF for more information. JJ98 (Talk) 22:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious. Despite earlier AfD (in 2007!!) still not a single reliable source. Meaning that all we have at this point is pure original research and opinion. Without sources, this is a clear fail of WP:GNG and (probably even more importantly) WP:V. --Crusio (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The individual fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and any article about him would only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. Furthermore, the article provides no reference, which makes the content original research, nothing worth keeping. Jfgslo (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2011 (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.