Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Roger Rabbit (dance)

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 Who Framed Roger Rabbit. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Roger Rabbit (dance)

Unreferenced article, non-notable topic. --EEMIV (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. There are 1000+ Google hits for "rober rabbit dance", so it does exist, although I don't know if it meets notability requirements. LinguistAtLarge 17:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge/Redirect a clear case of good information that belongs in the parent article. A redirect would suffice on the off-chance someone searched for "The Roger Rabbit (dance)".ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are a few more Google news hits for this [1], but the notability of this dance appears to be extremely marginal. It makes sense to merge it in the article related to the film, as an offshoot of the flick's popularity. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...the Cabbage Patch... the Locomotive! Give Coach Z a chance to do a hip hop dance, but Delete this one for not being notable. JuJube (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at the very least merge it to the film. It may be a stub, but has three book references to establish notability. Part of late 80s popular culture that WP doesn't cover in depth. Squidfryerchef (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. The "references" used should be cases in point when we say "trivial" mention. The third reference's mention of the article subject is a laffer. Protonk (talk) 19:54, 17 November 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.