Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey (advertising character)(2nd nomination)

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 meets notability per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey (advertising character)[edit]

Non-Notable, Cruft, Wikipedia is not a child's fan-site. Oh, and unknown in South America. And North America, U.S. of A. etc. JeanLatore (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First it appears that Monkey is not from a childrens show, but an advertising mascot like Tony the Tiger. Second it is notable because it is extremely rare for an advertising mascot to jump products...it would be like Mickey Mouse suddenly appearing for Universal Studios. All of the arguments in the first AfD still apply Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey (advertising character) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 00:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep have you actually looked at the sources which are already in the article, never mind others which no doubt could be included? They included the BBC, the Guardian, Observer and Telegraph. A higher quality of WP:RS you could not get. Sticky Parkin 01:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it doesn't matter if something is unknown in other countries- I haven't heard of half the American or other stuff on here, nor have probably most people from the UK on here. What matters is WP:RS. The nominator really needs to look at the grounds for an AfD before making it, what's more he didn't even research enough to find out what the character actually was before nominating it, and was mistaken about its nature entirely, as can be seen in his nominating statement. Sticky Parkin 01:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not British, so I've never heard of this guy, but three BBC articles are more than enough to satisfy WP:V. BradV 01:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep: For all the reasons above and for all the reasons on the original AfD discussion. Even for a deletionist like me, this is a no-brainer. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep seems like a bad-faith nom to me. Jean's been creating a bunch of AfD targets lately. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been in kind of a funky mood lately -- I haven't smoked weed in almost a week and maybe it's making me ancy...JeanLatore (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you knock off this parade of nonsensical and disruptive behavior. You're just asking to get blocked. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nomination with little basis. Cruft does not get written up in major newspapers. Being known in Britain is certainly sufficient for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 03:23, 6 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.