Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockney Wanker

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. A merge discussion can (and probably should) take place on the article's talk page. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 18:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cockney Wanker[edit]

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

Not notable, unsourced since forever, redirect undone for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Viz (comic) - I can find no reliable sources about this character; he is not notable beyond the comic book he is from. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to the Viz article. Lugnuts (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/merge to Viz (comic). Enough sources exist for a brief summary, but probably not a standalone article, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. --Michig (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per general keep argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farmer Palmer and further comments re the nominator's blanking of fifty Viz articles in half an hour, his ongoing RFC and recent block for deletion abuse at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finbarr Saunders.
Like many of Viz' older and long-running characters, the character and the hurtfully crude stereotypes they portray, have since entered UK popular culture. Northerners no longer refer to "cockneys" but to "cockney wankers". Michig's cites indicate just how widespread this cartoon character has become as the general shorthand for a particular sort of East end stereotype. Time Out (who are a RS for much of the popular cultural zeitgeist) even seemed to like it simply as the comic creation itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May not be a nice character but he is a long running Viz character and therefore has gained some notability from this alone. The article already exists and goes into more detail than the list of Viz characters. As already mentiobed the stereotype also gives him notability as well. Cexycy (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are confusing notability with some subjective idea of worth that you have. Notability is not subjective, and neither of the things that you mention have any impact upon notability whatsoever. Notability comes from this character being documented by the world. Try pointing to where that has happened. Point to where any of the content in this article can be verified against published information produced by people who have checked their facts. The sources pointed out by Michig support exactly one sentence of this article (the third paragraph). Uncle G (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Michig are quite adequate to establish notability and our policy is not to delete such notable material. Warden (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2012 (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.