Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conky 2000

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 redirect to Pee-wee's Playhouse. Sandstein 20:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conky 2000

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the discussion in the main rticle is quite adequate to the purpose. As usual, no reason given why a redirect is inappropriate. DGG (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The main article has enough; this article is too much. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article. Nominators and delete !voters need to make a case why redirection isn't preferable. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note--I can tell you why I think deleting is good: "Conky would then begin to move, emanating electronic sounds from his audio speakers (which were part of a stereo "boom box", lending further evidence to his being pieced together from all sorts of consumer electronics) as though he was "booting up". Upon activation, Conky would move around in an exaggerated fashion, often flailing his arms and spinning on his wheels. He would then exclaim with an electronic stutter (like the sampling keyboard effect used in many '80s pop songs), "Conky 2000, r-r-ready to assist you, P-P-Pee-wee!" Pee-wee would then request the secret word, which would then appear from a slot on one of Conky's front panels on a slip of cash register sale receipt-like paper (in the later seasons, it was a piece of card stock)." This is a robot on a TV show from two decades ago--not notable in its own right, certainly not at such length. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is arguing to actually keep the article as a separate article. The qy is why delete rather than redirect, & I do not see that you or the nom have answered it. I don't see why the show being old has anything to do with either notability or suitability for a redirect. DGG (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. I'm not convinced that some affirmative case has to be made about redirects every single time. Every element of fiction has an obvious redirect target: the fictional work which it is a part of. This doesn't mean that a redirect is always preferable, that a merge is appropriate, or that a redirect can't be placed there following deletion. In this case, the nominator has a very clear reason why he wouldn't redirect the article--past experience has shown that to be fruitless in general. Either way, subject isn't covered in reliable, independent sources. Protonk (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If "past experience has shown that to be fruitless in general", that is usually only when there has been no consensus to redirect. Many of TTN's redirects in the past have not been contested and continue to exist without contention. From what I can see, it was the raw speed and volume of redirects, and the lack of discussion over reverted redirects, that led to these "fruitless" results. So now instead of discussing only the contentious redirects, are we going to have to waste time discussing every single article TTN would have simply redirected in the past, instead of only the controversial ones? How is that a preferable solution? Why are these being discussed on AfD instead of on the article's talk page, at an appropriate WikiProject, or at proposed mergers? DHowell (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

those that have been objected to have been mainly those that lose content. They should be objected to--a more appropriate merge would generally be approved. in a 3rdO if necessary. Even I have repeatedly offered to help support those. The way to deal with disputes over merges is dispute resolution, not afd. DGG (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge - conky is a simple word which may be looked up (as a main character of an old notable TV series), and hence is a searchable term. And it is covered in other sources, as evidenced by he references. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or merge. This is a plausible search term, and deletion is supposed to be a last resort. It is policy that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion"; and redirection is one form of "regular editing" (i.e. it doesn't require an administrator to perform). DHowell (talk) 01:28, 28 October 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.