Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stimpy

Stimpy

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

All souring is primary. No sources, no out of universe notability. JJ98 (Talk) 18:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating as the same reason:

Characters are notable, but Ren and Stimpy (characters) is a better article, with sources cited. Either redirect to it and add the infoboxes/images (or a combined one) or split the articles. Peter James (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (whisper) @ 22:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (babble) @ 22:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ren and Stimpy (characters) - the duo is far more notable than either character alone and its hard to talk about one without mentioning the other. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Ren and Stimpy (characters). No indication of no individual notability and no justification for a distinct article per WP:SPLIT. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ren and Stimpy (characters) as suggested above. The article about the pair seems to meet WP:GNG and with its existence, the separate character articles become quite redundant. VQuakr (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely merge, and if possible, merge into The Ren & Stimpy Show since Ren and Stimpy (characters) seems to be prone to vandalism. IsaacAA (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put the redirects since it looks like a hard and fast consensus. IsaacAA (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The debate has only been open about a day, closing now would be premature. At this point keeping the articles would be an uphill battle, not a WP:SNOW situation warranting early closure. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; can you honestly think of a single reason why a sourceless article that is a sloppy duplicate of an existing sourced article should exist? The guidelines are not in place to postpone the exceedingly obvious. IsaacAA (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not a bureaucracy, but there is no deadline either. To quote WP:SNOW: If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause. I do not think this is such an exception case that it needs early closure; someone else might have something to contribute to the discussion. VQuakr (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of rushing anything, how could you possibly justify replacing a sourced article with an unsourced article? IsaacAA (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because you copied and pasted another, related article (including, admittedly, refs) in an attempt to make a WP:POINT. VQuakr (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]