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 delete. inadequateluy sourced for an independant article Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley the Loon[edit]

Shirley the Loon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This character does not establish notability independent of Tiny Toon Adventures through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The main article calls her a major character, so a separate article is appropriate. The show actually won an few Emmys so I guess its important enough for that, & it does indicate there are sources. DGG (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above, and has a reference. Another should be readily found. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this and all nominated Tiny Toons characters into a "List of characters in Tiny Toons" article. Jonny2x4 (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to an LOC. No basis for an independent article. Eusebeus (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not assert notability with real world context through significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. The source listed doesn't provide any information other than the name of the voice actress. Jay32183 (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, possibly a merge, the article does not give any real world context but the series is notable and this is a relatively major character. Of course, the article needs to be greatly improved. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 18:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep contra nom due to notability, coverage in reliable third party sources, and as necessary unoriginal research. Suggesting that any article can not somehow be improved is a salutary gesture of pessimism, but not a serious argument. Thus, the nominator is quite wrong.--63.3.1.1 (talk) 18:40, 14 November 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.