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. Consensus suggests that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Discussion regarding editorial decisions may continue at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Master Shake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

After an incipient edit war about restoring the article after the previous AfD concluded "delete and redirect" and a G4 speedy nomination that was declined by an admin (neither of which I was involved in), I'm bringing this here for discussion. I see no reason for the previous AfD closure to be disregarded without a deletion review concluding that the restoration of the article is warranted, and the two new sources cited in the article hardly treat the topic in a substantive manner (being nothing but passing mentions). I therefore advocate deletion, with a subsequent recreation of the redirect, in accordance with the result of previous AfD. The question of recreation can then be brought up at DRV if anyone thinks it worthwhile. Deor (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. If the nominator is advocating a redirect rather than a redlink, that can be discussed on the article's talk page. In any event, I agree with Hobit. Specifically with regards to my edit here. The AfD was held back in 2007, i.e. three years ago. The character's significance has only expanded in the past three years as it is a main character in a multi-season television show, a theatrically released movie, a mainstream video game, had a guest appearance on another show, has been made into costumes and action figures, etc. The DVD commentaries provides out of universe development information and reviews of the show discuss his reception, as verified on Google Books and especially Google News. What editors deemed non-notable three years ago does not autamatically mean events will not occur subsequently as has happened here to make the notable not relevant. It concerns yet another unilateral redirect. And well, just because you "feel" it is not notable, when all evidence points to the contrary and when two editors disagree, does not mean you should just go ahead and redirect. DRV is for reviewing administrator's closes of discussions. No one is challenging the close of the three year old discussion. Rather, since then, we would be hard pressed to imagine another consensus supporting outright deletion as the appearances and sources for this character have increased astronomically since then. One should not have to play games with processes when common sense suggests the character's is in a much better position for potential improvement now than three years ago. If you do not think something that has appeared in a multi-season show, a theatrically released film, as a guest in other shows, in video games, toys, costumes, and has been covered in multiple mainstream reliable sources is notable, then we are not having a reasonable academic discussion on "notability". Not even the most ludicrously strict definition of "notability" would preclude such a character. This character has significant coverage in reliable sources according to any reasonable examination of these sources. It is one instance where it is more objective fact than subjective interpretation. Given the shear number of the sources, yes, you could indeed make a multi-paragraph section on reception. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it looks like sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per A Nobody. Possibly redirect. 453 Google news hits Ikip (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or merge. Consider a merged article for the three main characters. The discussion of them in the combination article is too short to be meaningful, just as the discussion here is too extensive. There's usually a compromise. A nobody makes some other suggestions for doing this. Technically, per the GNG, the sources would permit an article, but I do not think that necessarily means we must make one. However, finding additional sources is a very good reason to reinstate a previously deleted article. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are references, so there is no excuse for people to destroy this character article. Dream Focus 02:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major character of a decently long-running tv show, and no plan mentioned for dealing with the articles on the other 2-3 major characters. Unless someone is ready to merge these into one "list of major character of Aqua Teen Hunger Force" or whatever, I see no reason to delete. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Deor. This was an inappropriate recreation of a previously discussed and deleted article. That's what WP:DRV is for. Jack Merridew 04:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the last AfD, was in November 2007! Going to DRV would be needless and this article easily passes WP:N. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 04:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as referenced - I have undeleted the pre-Nov 07 edits so editors can judge for themselves the improvements. I think given it has improved, then AfD is a better path to go than doing it sight unseen via DRV. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per A nobody. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Gonna echo A Nobody. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. DRV is for, well, reviewing AfD closures. I don't think anyone is contending that the last AfD was improperly closed. I am unaware of any rule that says recreating a deleted article, no matter how long ago the deletion was, must go through DRV (at least when no unsalting is needed). Indeed, that would make DRV quite unmanageable. DRV does sometimes consider new sources, but that is AFAIK normally incident to its review of a closure, to decide if a relist is warranted in light of the sources (again, assuming that we are not talking about unsalting). Is anyone actually proposing to reopen and relist that 2-year-old AfD? As to the merits, for the reasons well stated by A Nobody, this article passes WP:N with ease. Tim Song (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really think that the (now) three references in the article, which support only a minuscule part of its content, constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? A search such as this (and the corresponding search for Web material) suggests that "passes WP:N with ease" may be an overstatement, to say the least. Deor (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The people here are obviously either diehard inclusionists or those who don't really understand how to properly relate WP:N to fictional topics. Two sources, which provide fairly insignificant comments, are not enough to establish independent notability, and this is especially true for a character that only needs a small paragraph to describe the entirety of its fictional content. This obviously won't be deleted, but hopefully the closer will add something about this not affecting any possible merge discussions. TTN (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing nominator please note I hope that there is no mention in the closing comments that the close will "not affect...any possible merge discussions" the last time that happened in a keep, TTN had a several week long bitter battle over three articles, culminating in a long edit war and an ANI.Ikip (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't participate in any of the edit warring or the ANI thread, so that has nothing to do with this. TTN (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But your friends on the WikiProject: Video games did, after you ask them to help you, since your actions attracted an inclusionist. [1] Anyone who disagrees with your opinion that all/most character articles everywhere should be deleted, is a diehard inclusionist fanatic apparently. Avatar (Ultima) closed as Keep, and yet it got merged anyway, against the opinions of the majority of people involved in the merge discussion. If the article closes as a Keep, it should be kept, not replaced with a redirect and claims that a token bit of information was merged. Dream Focus 12:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be in the better interest of you two (Ikip and Dream Focus) to not use bullying to try and intimidate editors that don't agree with you. This has nothing to do with the Avatar event which clearly had consensus to merge as a possibility. It would do both of you damn well to assume to some good faith instead of preaching about evils that aren't there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the nature of the comment at that link, a blatant violation of WP:CANVASSING if not actual meatpuppetry, good faith is indeed getting rather strained here DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and continue improvements toward an independent article or a suitable merge resulting from a discussed compromise. With respects to TNN, I am not a "diehard inclusionist" and have !voted delete at many AfDs. The first AfD was nearly two years ago... and I am not in any way suggesting that the closure in 2007 was incorrect. But the world continues to turn... and it is not too difficult a stretch me to believe that the continued coverage of ATHF since that first AfD might now provide sourcing that could allow the article to better meet the requirements of WP:N. With an understanding that consensus is not eternal, and that growth is the purpose of Wikipedia and not its bane, I do not think it unreasonable to allow the article to be improved so as to better the project as a whole. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a main character in a notable series. A good article is certainly possible. -- Banjeboi 02:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Ah, the Article Rescue Squadron Extraordinaire shock troops—how I love them! Deor (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please comment on content not contributors, if you actually dispute what someone is stating that would be more compelling than disparaging what you see as their motives. -- Banjeboi 18:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Deor is right! It is absolutely shameful that any group trying to improve articles to improve the project might actually have opinions... and worse yet that they dare to voice them at discussions about those same articles... trying to share their own narrow interpretationa on applicable guidelines. Outrageous!! How dare they think to even suggest that an article might be improved! Blasphemy!! All Wikiprojects should be disbanded as representative of special interest groups... and their memberships summarliy banned. 198.147.225.176 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above per DGG who is quite right about the fact that this article is excessive. The "sources" are just guff adduced to satisfy in name only our standards at WP:RS. Sadly, it looks as if a successful canvass effort from the ARS keepmongers will lead to a no consensus keep. Eusebeus (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am curious, in your experience, has labeling editors ever been an effective strategy in anything you have done here on wikipedia? I have abandonded such narrow and devisive labels, and counsel others not to use such labels, because it never has been very effective for me. 158.70.145.112 (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Question;' Does anyone have any practical suggestions for how a merge consensus can be kept from turning into an actual delete by stages (or, in the other direction, keeping too much , though that is rarer)? if people who like this material could be confident of that , it would be easier to get merges--as Eusebeus, A Nobody, MQS, and I all want to do? DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I reject the question that DGG presents above. Characterization of merging as deletion by stages is something totally unrelated to the actual act of merging. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2009 (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.