Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Gribble

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 no consensus. This demonstrates the perennial problem with multi-nom AfDs. Some of these are possibly notable; others are probably not. I'd suggest that, if not, they be dealt with individually by BOLD merging and/or returning to AfD singly. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Gribble

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

This article is 98% original research and almost entirely an in universe narrative/essay. If all of the WP:OR was deleted, the result would be a couple sentences and an infobox. There isn't enough content here to warrant separate articles about every character from King of the Hill, and in fact, not only does the main TV show article contain bios about the characters, but there's also an article List of King of the Hill characters, which describes them in more detail. The separate articles are massive overkill and should be redirected to the List article, or to the main TV show article. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also group nominating the following related articles based on the same rationale. Not enough content for separate articles and the list of characters is sufficient. Any minor bits of info from the separate articles can be merged there:

The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as nominator is not actually proposing deletion but rather merger. Just put a merger template on the top of each page you want to merge and discuss your proposal on the talk page. An AfD discussion is not required in this case. Keresaspa (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. As a meta-argument, I don't think this should be speedy closed. The reason is that centralized discussion venues are superior to localized discussions, because experience has shown that any policy-grounded arguments can be vetoed by a small clique of enthusiasts. This is especially true of pop culture articles. Using AfD to obtain consensus for or against merging from neutral editors is to be preferred. Reyk _YO! 03:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all These topics are covered in numerous sources including:

Television Cartoon Shows: an illustrated encyclopedia
Cult TV: The Comedies
The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows
The Magic Behind the Voices
Drawn to Television: Prime-time Animation from the Flintstones to Family Guy
America Toons In: A History of Television Animation
Queers in American Popular Culture
Encyclopedia of Television Shows, 1925 through 2010
Animated 'Worlds'
God, Man, and Hollywood: Politically Incorrect Cinema

The nomination's claims are not supported by any evidence and, as noted above, aren't actually proposing deletion but just some kind of merger/cleanup. But AFD is not cleanup. The discussion should be speedily closed per WP:SK "fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Andrew (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the articles per nominator, they are overcoverage. And you can't build articles out of OR. Redirecting leaves article history intact and if someone wants to merge they can do so. Also, keep this discussion open because WP:NOTBURO and a proposed group redirect is not different from deletion. Arguing to forcibly close a discussion for technical reasons appears as through there's no objective argument to keep the articles and so other methods to keep them from being deleted or redirected need be employed. And Reyk's argument is pertinent as well, RE: a centralized location where a broader consensus can be obtained. Kindzmarauli (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hank Hill, who is a notable character in his own right. The rest may be legitimate candidates for merger to List of King of the Hill characters, but I do agree with Andrew that AfD is not intended to be a place for extensive merger discussions. This page is crowded enough without them. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Folks, this isn't a merger discussion. I clearly stated that the articles should be redirected, which is the same as deletion but saves the article history. I figured I was being kind by suggesting this as opposed to outright deletion and that anything useful could be merged afterwards. In any case, I'm not seeing much that disputes my rationale for redirecting these articles, except for maybe Hank Hill. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is a specific function which makes the page and its edit history invisible to ordinary readers. This function is restricted and that's why we have deletion discussions - to agree consensus for the use of this specific function. Deletion discussions are not appropriate when other kinds of editing actions are wanted. Moving/merging/redirecting pages are ordinary edits for which no special permission is required. You should not bring discussion of such actions to AFD as the AFD process is already overloaded to breaking point. Andrew (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge all as is. Since Hank Hill is notable, some of the characters could be merged into List of King of the Hill characters. JJ98 (Talk) 00:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close discussion but reopen it without Hank Hill or as individual nominations. The fact that numerous editors feel or will feel that Hank alone should be an independent article will make it very difficult to determine an independent consensus for the other pages.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the articles per nominator. They are overcoverage.Taram (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2014 (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.