Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stimpy

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 Ren and Stimpy (characters). (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stimpy

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

All souring is primary. No sources, no out of universe notability. JJ98 (Talk) 18:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating as the same reason:

Characters are notable, but Ren and Stimpy (characters) is a better article, with sources cited. Either redirect to it and add the infoboxes/images (or a combined one) or split the articles. Peter James (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (whisper) @ 22:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (babble) @ 22:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ren and Stimpy (characters) - the duo is far more notable than either character alone and its hard to talk about one without mentioning the other. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Ren and Stimpy (characters). No indication of no individual notability and no justification for a distinct article per WP:SPLIT. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ren and Stimpy (characters) as suggested above. The article about the pair seems to meet WP:GNG and with its existence, the separate character articles become quite redundant. VQuakr (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely merge, and if possible, merge into The Ren & Stimpy Show since Ren and Stimpy (characters) seems to be prone to vandalism. IsaacAA (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put the redirects since it looks like a hard and fast consensus. IsaacAA (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The debate has only been open about a day, closing now would be premature. At this point keeping the articles would be an uphill battle, not a WP:SNOW situation warranting early closure. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; can you honestly think of a single reason why a sourceless article that is a sloppy duplicate of an existing sourced article should exist? The guidelines are not in place to postpone the exceedingly obvious. IsaacAA (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not a bureaucracy, but there is no deadline either. To quote WP:SNOW: If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause. I do not think this is such an exception case that it needs early closure; someone else might have something to contribute to the discussion. VQuakr (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of rushing anything, how could you possibly justify replacing a sourced article with an unsourced article? IsaacAA (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because you copied and pasted another, related article (including, admittedly, refs) in an attempt to make a WP:POINT. VQuakr (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this disruptive? I took unsourced statements and added sources. You feel like it's too early to merge these articles into Ren and Stimpy (characters); that's fine. That doesn't mean the article can't be edited, especially if the edit removes unsourced information and adds references. IsaacAA (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course there is out of universe notability--STIMPY is a homeobox gene in Arabidopsis. There are many peer-reviewed papers on this. While I have no opinion on the notability of the cartoon character, there should be no prejudice to recreation of the article about this likely notable gene. --Mark viking (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stimpy is notable, but the topic overlaps significantly with Ren and Stimpy (characters) and Stimpy can be more than adequately covered in that article, which qualifies it for a merge. IsaacAA (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Ren and Stimpy (characters) and redirect. The characters themselves are only notable when considered together and the sources demonstrate that. Per the essay, not policy, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): "Individually non-notable elements of a fictional work (such as characters and episodes) may be grouped into an appropriate list article." (Admittedly, citing this essay does not so much to bolster the strength of my argument.) - tucoxn\^talk 20:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Ren and Stimpy (characters) as forks. I don't think there's much to merge, content seems more or less replicated from the combined page. Characters are notable in tandem, not individually. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2013 (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.