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 Result was 'redirect. Even the delete !votes don't seem to object to a redirect. There is question as to whether the redirect will be useful, but redirects are cheap. Don't see a need to protect at this point, as there has not been any edit warring over maintaining a redirect, and User:Fanfare25 has been indefinitely blocked. Rlendog (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pear (character)[edit]

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

PROD was contested by article creator and another editor. Article is about a minor character in a web series (The Annoying Orange) that already has a section about them. BurtAlert (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Delete This article is not at all notable. The section at the annoying orange page is more than enough. This article is unreferenced, short, poorly written, contains original research and is mostly in-universe writing. JDDJS (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does list at least three references that do show that sometimes the character is a MAJOR character. It may be short and poorly written, but it is an article that informs the reader of a major character in a web-series, so the reason for speedy delete is an abomonation Fanfare25 (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Blocked user. JDDJS (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The article does list at least three references" that is a complete lie. There are (currently) no references at all on that page. And seeing how your a new editor and going by your edits so far, you are probably completely unaware of the notability guidelines. I suggest your familiarize yourself with them at WP:Notability before you call a speedy delete "an abomonation". JDDJS (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but Edit The article does give reference to a major character in a web series, so Wikipedia should keep the article. However, the article may need more improvement. WikiContestor00 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Ignore comments from the sock. JDDJS (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Fanfare25, I thin you should replace "three references" with "three links." Just so that others don't belive that you lie. Anyways, Weak Keep The article does include a major character in a web-series, but must have a MAJOR reorganization and more edit, because the article is brief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruda556 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Blocked user. JDDJS (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to the paragraph on the The Annoying Orange page. Debatable whether The Annoying Orange (character) should exist as it lacks content. I think a more natural breakaway page would be List of The Annoying Orange characters and then see where it goes from there Bob House 884 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the aforementioned section. Doesn't cost, and someone might want to find it. Personally, I can't see why, but everyone to their own tastes (as the old lady said when she kissed the cow). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peridon (talk • contribs)
Redirect per Peridon. The delete !votes have no merit when there's clearly a real fictional element and a redirect target. Protect the redirect in case of edit warring, should the need arise. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody voting delete here is opposed to a redirect, just didnt really occur to me that anybody would ever search for 'Pear(character)'. I'm interested to hear what possible reason there could be for protecting this page though. Bob House 884 (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the redirect although like Bob Hose said I doubt anybody would actually look it up. I'm pretty sure that Jclemens wants to protect it so that Fanfare or other editors don't keep trying to recreate the page. JDDJS (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon when an article is reduced to a redirect. Protection is set at sysop level so that someone looks things up before it can be changed back to an article. Peridon (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I'm not entirely sure what the usual procedure is, I'll leave it to the closing admin. I'm totally against making any exception here though, it feels like a massive assumption of bad faith when the editor in question hasn't shown any 'form' and has definately (if in a slightly misguided way due to being a new user) tried to engage with the deletion process. Protection is a last resort so imo we should wait to see if there is a problem before we use it. Bob House 884 (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On this discussion, I see no reason to change anything about the web-series character, since he already has a section about himself in The Annoying Orange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montono (talk • contribs) 01:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I doubt anyone would want to look it-up. It is barely reference, poorly written, and brief. However, it could be redirected, yet I still doubt anyone would look it up. Montono (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user JDDJS (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2011 (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.