Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scooby-Dum

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 Scooby-Doo characters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby-Dum

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

Clearly, this article fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 19:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No out-of-universe context or notability. --Crusio (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, this is incorrect, there is a section on the real-world reception of the character, which has a cited source. Mathewignash (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly, a WP:VAGUEWAVE at a policy is not a very good reason for deleting an article. A half-assed google search shows plenty of news and book sources for this so at worst it ought to be merged into a related Scooby-Doo article. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a quick search on brought about dozens if not hundreds of hits in third party books. I added three of them to the article as an example. The article should be tagged as needing more sources, not deletion. Mathewignash (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline to deserve a stand-alone article and the content of the article is mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work. A search engine test does not show reliable secondary sources that address the character in detail or that give it any sort of reception or significance. All that shows up are either unreliable sources or tertiary sources that give trivial mentions, but no secondary sources that provide the most objective evidence of notability with analytic or evaluative claims. The three references in the article are all tertiary sources and do not appear to give significant coverage to the character either. Google hits in tertiary sources are not evidence of notability, as said sources are for the TV series where the fictional character is only addressed as part of the plot, which can be perfectly covered in the main article. Jfgslo (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm sorry, but your rational has a big flaw in it. You say it's a "the article is mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work", if something is "mostly", then it's not "only", is it? By your very words it's NOT a plot-only description. There are in fact cited sources of people's reaction to the chartacter, that's not plot-only. Mathewignash (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough for separate article. As with The Hex Girls, a willing editor could create a separate list of the non-major Scooby Doo characters. --EdwardZhao (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of Scooby-Doo characters. There is not enough to say about him for his own article. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not enough coverage in third-party sources to WP:verify notability. This would warrant deletion. But merging seems like a fair compromise if it will help achieve consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While I would normally argue that this should be merged into the main Scooby-Doo article, if you search on Google it's very obviously that there are a plenitude of third-party sources that could be used to help flesh out this article. --Sharkface^T/_C 00:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I don't see the plenitude of secondary sources that Sharkface refers to, unless they are sources that are not reliable. The appropriate merge target is List of Scooby-Doo characters. Neelix (talk) 02:45, 30 June 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.