Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duck Man

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, basically. I'm going to get a little creative here. Several have rightly pointed out that a redirect should go to Duckman. So I will move this article to Duck Man (Discworld) and then merge it to Canting crew. This should satisfy most, I think. Mango juice^talk 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Man[edit]

Non notable fictional character, no evidence of third party reliable sources. Prod removed without comment, author has since commented "I do not think this article should be deleted as it is about a well known fictional character. Since the deletion suggestion I have added more information to the article." on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Mention in the Discworld article would be more than sufficient if it must go in at all. Ros0709 (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The info in the article seems to already exist in the article on the Canting Crew. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Duckman, which is almost certainly what anyone typing "Duck Man" into WP's search box would be looking for, anyway. The current subject is already better covered in the Canting Crew article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Duckman No comment. Lady Galaxy 23:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Did you really mean that? They are currently two different subjects. Ros0709 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't aware of that. That article is too short. Why didn't you tell the previous poster that as well (he said almost the same thing as I did)? Lady Galaxy 01:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I believe the previous poster is making an entirely different point, which is that someone who enters "Duck Man" as a search term is more likely to have mis-spelled Duckman than actually be interested in Duck Man, and therefore Duck Man should simply be a redirect to there. I personally believe that it should direct to Canting Crew because Duck Man info is there. Ros0709 (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with a lot of American TV shows or cartoons, only the popular ones. I wasn't aware of that. Sorry. Lady Galaxy 23:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Duckman Current character is NN, and I think it's far more likely someone would be looking for the show Duckman and just mistype it. TJ Spyke 01:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Perhaps, perhaps not -- JIC, I put a hatnote at Duckman for Canting Crew; you can change it to the one that says "Duck Man redirects here..." if and when this AfD goes thru. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 04:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MergeA suitable paragraph in the combination article for Canting Crew seems sufficient. DGG (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG. Hobit (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this stub provides no content, context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Discworld canon; its a Dead Duck. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note the comment on the talk page of the article. J Milburn (talk) 11:44, 26 January 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.