Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugs' Bunny

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, default to keep. Of course, merge/redirect discussions may continue outside the AfD process. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs' Bunny

Relevant information about the early incarnation of Bugs is already on the Bugs Bunny page, anything else that isn't there already can be merged into the main article. The rest seems to be a list of plot summaries of the various shorts the proto-Bugs appeared in. Odie Hume Hannity (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect ~~per nomination. -- saberwyn 02:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)~~ Time to elucidate my thoughts more appropriately. I think that once the overly-detailed plot summary is trimmed down to a reasonable size, the content of this article will be of a convenient size to rest inside the Bugs Bunny article. As this article is entirely about Proto-Bugs, and therefore an important stage in the development of Modern-Bugs, this information would be more appropriately located together with the rest of Modern-Bugs' development history. In my mind, any appropriately sourced information should be merged over to the Modern-Bugs article, and the article should be redirected (anchored if necessary) to this location. If it turns out that there is such an as-yet-untapped wealth of reliably sourced and published information about the Proto-Bugs character that it overwhelms the Modern-Bugs article, it can be split out again. I agree with Reyk below that the overly-long plot summary needs to die a terrible, terrible death. -- saberwyn 05:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly needs to be better referenced, but books on Warner Brothers and cartoons must cover this character's evolution. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then would it not be best to keep all the information on the evolution of Bugs Bunny in one central location? -- saberwyn 03:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but looking at both articles I think the information is too extensive. I think they can coexist and link to each other as appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I thought long and hard about suggesting a merge with Bugs Bunny, but in the end I decided against it. The main article already contains enough information on this prototype of Bugs. It would not be improved by including what is rapidly becoming Wikipedia's most serious problem: unsourced plot summary. There's nothing here worth salvaging in any form. Delete, and reinstate as a redirect to the main article. Reyk _YO! 04:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and please pass the ketchup. The main article on Bugs Bunny could use some of the things the proto-Bugs says in Hare-um Scare-um. I couldnt tell if I knew that episode from the main article, but in the Bugs' article, i'm like, oh yeah, that was the one with the celery. I do agree with it being an excessive plot summary though. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I argue that Bugs' Bunny is not the same topic as Bugs Bunny, and that Bugs' Bunny is a notable and worthy topic in its own right. There are many characters that have evolved over time, and I argue that the character we know as Bugs today is sufficiently removed from this topic that this topic deserves to stand alone. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with nomination & Reyk. (Neostinker (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Plot summaries are available in the articles for the individual cartoons, which are linked in the "Bugs' Bunny" section of Bugs Bunny. I don't see anything worth merging to the main article. Deor (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might as well stop debating. It looks like 69.123.133.101 did a merge and redirect already. It would have been nice if you had waited until the debate was over. Mandsford (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the merge. It;'s almost always wrong to do that during a contested AfD. I would have reverted this overbold step no matter what I thought about the article. The question has to be settled by discussion. DGG (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't give this a "keep" vote until it gets some references. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - This is indeed the prototype of Bugs Bunny as we know him today FMAFan1990 (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Bugs Bunny. If there are more sources than what are already at Bugs Bunny, then a more in-depth break-out article may be useful and interesting but without WP:RS, I agree with Reyk that it tends to unsourced plot summary fancruft. I don't see any benefit in deletion or salting. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 07:57, 23 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.