Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea (barbie)

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 to List of Barbie's friends and family. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea (barbie)

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

Do we really need an article for every Barbie that has rolled of the production line? CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 01:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename & Redirect- Incorrectly titled - fix; redirect all to List of Barbie's friends and family as valid search terms, which should have been attempted (or Prod'ed) prior to AfD. No independent notability. Same as the others, and this is a rare example of where bundling would have been preferable. Headed offline, or I'd paste this to the others, minus the renaming. Dru of Id (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No adequate reason to delete has been provided. Note that Barbie dolls are documented in sources such as Warman's Barbie Doll Field Guide and Collector's Encyclopedia of Barbie Doll Exclusives. Warden (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Barbie's friends and family which contains most of the same information. It would perhaps make sense to turn the latter into more of a table format. Mangoe (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - come to think of it, merging is a way better idea now. Maybe I should've just WP:BEBOLD and merged it instead of RfA'ing this here... CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 07:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete - This character appears to have only been around for 2 years. As those familiar with the Barbie "universe" may already understand, Barbie's friends/family are constantly changing. Certain characters such as Ken and Skipper have been around for almost 50 years and really do need their own articles, but I honestly don't see the need to begin adding a separate "stub" for every single new character that is added to the line. If she's still around in another 10 or 20 years, then the argument could be made than she possibly needs her own page. Not now. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2012 (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.