Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slappy the Dummy

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 keep. Neıl 龱 14:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slappy the Dummy[edit]

I think that it would be better if there where only articles for each individual book (Instead of both articles for individual books and grouped into a character page). This character page is a mess and I doubt that it will be improved. Schuym1 (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:FICTION; there is no "significant coverage" of this subject in reliable sources. Information on this recurring character is entirely appropriate for a subsection in the Goosebumps article, as well as the articles for the individual books in which he occurs. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. If as suggested above "Information on this recurring character is entirely appropriate for a subsection in the Goosebumps article" then we would merge and redirect without deletion per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. But in this case, there seems to be enough evidence to suggest verifiable notability as the character has even been spoofed by The Onion, which even The New York Times linked to as well as School Library Journal, has an official webpage with reliable information, and is signigicant enough of a character to have been made into a replica and to have a book with his name in the title (obviously reviews of the book would address the character). Thus, multiple appearances in the books, an actual ventriloquist doll, an official web page, being spoofed by a major "news" source, etc. all suggest notability. You can also find out of universe commentary on the character in interviews with CNN and in reviews of the books that can be used to expand the article as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find myself largely convinced by Le Grand Roi's research in this instance. Slappy appears to be a significant recurring character in a clearly notable series. The School Library Journal link is a start, and I agree that there must be reviews out there that could give more content and out of universe context to the article.--Kubigula (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I usually don't like to '<action> per <some other editor>', I can't add to Le Grand's analysis in this case. Frank | talk 01:31, 4 July 2008 (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.