Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pooky the Teddy Bear

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/merge to List of Garfield characters. —Centrx→talk • 23:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pooky the Teddy Bear[edit]

There is already a section under List of Garfield characters we don't need an article Samuel 22:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Data exists else on wikipedia. Subject does not merit our inclusion guidelines for a separate article.--Anthony.bradbury 22:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If Pooky ever actually did anything, maybe keep it. But Pooky is a stuffed bear; not a lot of character development possible there. Badbilltucker 15:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Samuel. Danny Lilithborne 23:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge or keep fictional thing. Kappa 03:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. It needs a little improvement and wikification but I think this should be kept. --Alex 12:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree w/Alex on this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it can be improved, but washing garbage just gets you clean garbage. This is a cartoon prop that that was used for awhile and since discarded -- a fictional item of no real importance. --Calton | Talk 04:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Props can warrant entries. Consider it a prop with character or otherwise important value. For example, if one were to propose the deletion of the tricorder entry on the basis that it is simply a prop, an army of Trek fans would start burning houses down. That's Just It 05:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Covered in sufficient detail elsewhere, don't we think? Powers ^T 14:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary, per above. Adamkik 08:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite. The subject matter at hand plays a fairly encompassing role in the overarching topic, and also contains interaction history with other characters, inanimate or not. However, the article needs to be rewritten in order to conform to basic Wikipedia entry policy. That's Just It 05:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect per WP:FICT, the subject warrants a mention someplace I suppose. RFerreira 22:53, 28 September 2006 (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.