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/redirect to List of fairy tale characters in Shrek#Big Bad Wolf. Action to be taken by others. JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bad Wolf (Shrek)[edit]

Non-notable Shrek character that is just plot repetition of its appearances in the movies and video games. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of fairy tale characters in Shrek. JuJube (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, then delete per above. Malinaccier (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge then delete" is not a valid recommendation. One contraindicates the other, due to GFDL attribution continuation requirements. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Some discussion that does not relate to the article under consideration.
I think you're being pedantic, you know very well what they mean. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] You have a responsibility to have assumed I was acting in good faith when I relisted this debate and made my comment. I do not belive that you have access to the thoughts on the inside of my brain, so when you find yourself synthesizing this data because you think you will need to comment on it, how about try asking me? Here is what I do know: they said "merge then delete", which implies that these two actions will in-fact be taken, and in that order, if their recommendation is acted upon. The "merge" part implies take content from this article, and place that content into the alternate target page. Once this is done, per the GFDL licensing requirements, the old page may not be deleted, because that page's contribution history contains the attribution which is required under GFDL. "Pedantic" means childish (not to be confused with child-like), and implies exhibiting behavior such as tantrums that are inappropriate for an adult. I believe that you do not understand how to use this term properly, so I would recommend that you restrict the language of your comments to those terms that you do understand, and in-general you should restrict your comments themselves to the subject of the debate, not those who are participating in it. Also the relist template specifically states that new comments should be placed below the template, so in the future please do not add comments above the relist template. Thanks in advance for your cooperation, and happy editing. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I think you will find that throughout AFDs recommendations for "merge & delete" and "redirect & delete" and several other variations are rather common. However, as you pointed out we need to keep page histories, so the pages are not really deleted. As i'm sure you realised, I think that you're nitpicking by pointing this out, thus me calling your behaviour "pedantic". If you were really concerned about this very minor issue you would say the same thing to everyone who does this, but you don't. Moreover, your boorish tl;dr defence of your antics is even more irritating. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] You are quite right that these recommendations are very frequently made. But if you review the AFD instructions, it specifically says not to make them. Now if you review the delrevs for the past 5 days, you will see a plethora of frivolous delrevs where people are very upset that a "delete" outcome was not decided, even though numerous people put Something and delete as their bolded recommendation summary, but the admin closed the debate as a flavor of keep. I felt obligated to point out to this user (and others who might come along and agree with him/ her) that the recommendation is actually invalid and can not be honored. I feel quite justified in doing so, and also in responding to anyone who makes a personal attack in an AFD, such as you did when you called me pedantic. Even if I was being pedantic, you are not supposed to comment on it in an AfD. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Well yes, in hindsight, i would also probably also consider it a personal attack, even though you were being pedantic. I apologise, and hope we can work together just as well as we can argue on any future occasions we happen to bang into each other, cheers -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Some discussion that does not relate to the article under consideration.

I think you're being pedantic, you know very well what they mean. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a responsibility to have assumed I was acting in good faith when I relisted this debate and made my comment. I do not belive that you have access to the thoughts on the inside of my brain, so when you find yourself synthesizing this data because you think you will need to comment on it, how about try asking me? Here is what I do know: they said "merge then delete", which implies that these two actions will in-fact be taken, and in that order, if their recommendation is acted upon. The "merge" part implies take content from this article, and place that content into the alternate target page. Once this is done, per the GFDL licensing requirements, the old page may not be deleted, because that page's contribution history contains the attribution which is required under GFDL. "Pedantic" means childish (not to be confused with child-like), and implies exhibiting behavior such as tantrums that are inappropriate for an adult. I believe that you do not understand how to use this term properly, so I would recommend that you restrict the language of your comments to those terms that you do understand, and in-general you should restrict your comments themselves to the subject of the debate, not those who are participating in it. Also the relist template specifically states that new comments should be placed below the template, so in the future please do not add comments above the relist template. Thanks in advance for your cooperation, and happy editing. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that throughout AFDs recommendations for "merge & delete" and "redirect & delete" and several other variations are rather common. However, as you pointed out we need to keep page histories, so the pages are not really deleted. As i'm sure you realised, I think that you're nitpicking by pointing this out, thus me calling your behaviour "pedantic". If you were really concerned about this very minor issue you would say the same thing to everyone who does this, but you don't. Moreover, your boorish tl;dr defence of your antics is even more irritating. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right that these recommendations are very frequently made. But if you review the AFD instructions, it specifically says not to make them. Now if you review the delrevs for the past 5 days, you will see a plethora of frivolous delrevs where people are very upset that a "delete" outcome was not decided, even though numerous people put Something and delete as their bolded recommendation summary, but the admin closed the debate as a flavor of keep. I felt obligated to point out to this user (and others who might come along and agree with him/ her) that the recommendation is actually invalid and can not be honored. I feel quite justified in doing so, and also in responding to anyone who makes a personal attack in an AFD, such as you did when you called me pedantic. Even if I was being pedantic, you are not supposed to comment on it in an AfD. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, in hindsight, i would also probably also consider it a personal attack, even though you were being pedantic. I apologise, and hope we can work together just as well as we can argue on any future occasions we happen to bang into each other, cheers -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The section stating that there was a conservative uproar over the character looks like it's legitimate and notable. [1] [2] [3]. Torc2 (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of fairy tale characters in Shrek#Big Bad Wolf. There are no sources cited in the article, so there is nothing to merge. The Big Bad Wolf section of the List of fairy tale characters article should mention the controversy that Torc2 cited. However, two trivial mentions and a forum discussion do not establish the notability of this character separate from the films.--FreeKresge (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Insufficient independent notability. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - per FreeKresge - TheProf07 (talk) 16:19, 29 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.