Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dexter (Dexter's Laboratory)

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 List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter (Dexter's Laboratory)

Totally unsourced, stuffed to the gills with OR (he's in California? I didn't know that). Yes, he is the titular character of his series and appeared in every episode, but I have been unable to find any sources pertaining to him as a whole. A couple sentences' worth of info in Dexter's Laboratory should be sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even after being fine with the last AfD I made for this article, I still don't see the justification behind it even with a snowy keep. As before, OR issues and too much of it where upon a stripdown you wouldn't have much more than what currently exists at List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory. treelo _radda 20:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and then consider whe

ther to Merge into the main article. That discussion belongs elsewhere--there might well be a good reason to keep the details separate. Such discussions should be the way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge'. Just to make this interesting.--23prootie (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. This content isn't going to be deleted, and AFD isn't the right venue for merge discussions. JulesH (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Why isn't this going to be deleted? (2) The nominator didn't start a merge discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It shouldn't be deleted because there is verifiable content that could be included in another more comprehensive article even if this article is deemed not independently notable. (2) That's exactly the point—per WP:BEFORE, the nominator should have started a merge discussion rather than starting an AfD. DHowell (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory. The main character obviously needs to cover especially when it's a good idea to disambiguate with the serial killer of the same name. By redirecting the option to merge is open (after adding sources that is) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A merge isn't a bad idea, but I was worried about the redirect being undone. Go ahead and merge if necessary, but I would suggest protecting the redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bold, revert, discuss is the way consensus has been achieved on a variety of editorial issues, so what makes you think it wouldn't work in this case? Forcing "consensus" through AfD and protected redirects is actually a rather poor alternative, and preemptive protection is against policy, to boot. DHowell (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, just look at the Alexis Grace controversy, User:Fritzpoll is getting a lot of HATE!!!!!!! for doing that so I suggest you don't.--23prootie (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and decide whether to merge elsewhere. Sources are mainly difficult to find because it is difficult to find search parameters that don't either bring up a ton of hits about the show itself, or ton of hits about the unrelated show Dexter. Nevertheless, in a cursory search I managed to find this, this, and this, which at least shows there is some coverage about the character to be found in third-party sources. DHowell (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory per Mgm. No non-trivial real-world information, entirely unsourced, unclear in how far this is all OR, but a redirect would leave the page intact for interested editors. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above with protection against recreation. Nothing more than in-universe trivia here. Eusebeus (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2009 (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.