Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RJ (Over the Hedge)

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 redirect to Over the Hedge. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RJ (Over the Hedge)[edit]

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG for a stand alone article. It is just a biographical article about a fictional character in the cartoon Over the Hedge. Anything encyclopedic can be added to the main article. EricSerge (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Over the Hedge (film)~~ Over the Hedge. None of this is encyclopedic information. The character doesn't display enough notability for his own article. T C N7JM 01:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, the movie is based on the comic strip, so it's probably better to redirect to the comic strip's article. T C N7JM 01:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either existing the character description at Over the Hedge#RJ... or, as this article spends so much time speaking toward RJ's action in the film, it could point to Over the Hedge (film)#Plot. Lacks the independent notability to merit a separate article.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the unencyclopedic content of a deleted article should be the qualifier in determining where the redirect is targeted. I think your first target seems most reasonable. T C N7JM 05:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either is fine with me, and the latter was only a nod to the film's popularity. All depends on which "RJ (racoon)" is the most searchable... the one in the comic strip or the one in the film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand,but why don't you edit this page to make it more encyclopedic? Typo385.5 (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Over the Hedge, because that came first and has more info on the character. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with redirect acceptable. Nom says it all for me. Fiddle Faddle 16:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. However I can see slight merit in a redirect to the film or comic strip article. Fylbecatulous talk 18:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Over the Hedge. The character has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to support a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangoondispenser (talk • contribs) 16:05, 4 September 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.