Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cutey Bunny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. References added during the course of the debate. WjBscribe 01:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cutey Bunny

Cutey Bunny (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

So its a furry comic book, and the article is totally unreferenced (and has been for months), and doesn't even give a hint as to whether this meets any notability guidelines. Delete, per WP:ATT and WP:N K@ngiemeep! 06:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - no sources, no references, no assertion of notability (and not convinced about 'fair use' on the images, either. Although it will be a tragedy to lose the phrase "Vicky Feldhyser, a kinky lesbian fox" from Wikipedia. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Widely known character in the independent comics genre dating back to at least 1983, who has been published by Fantagraphics and First Comics, two notable publishers (all this confirmed with a simple Google search). 23skidoo 11:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep long-running comic character with a quarter-century of history. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep References need added but google does show sufficient notability for me. StuartDouglas 13:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, strongly. Well known character and series; merited a mention in Trina Robbins's The Great Women Superheroes. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per the fact that the search I performed for sourcing turned up nothing which could be considered a reliable source which meets any verification issues. If this can be sourced per WP Policy, I would urge that any comic fans with access to those sources add them to the article. Liking something isn't reason enough to keep an article, especially when your only arguements are based on arbitrary numbers like how long ago it was created. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I found two print sources, which I added to the article. The information in the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Cartoon Animals is generally consistent with what the article describes. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Improve the article and source. Acalamari 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • How does one improve a source? Milto LOL pia 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - article as stands is worthless, purge and allow recreation once someone is willing to find some references and assert notability... the notability of furry stuff is consistently overestimated on WP IMO. I had a user subpage about that once, but I forgot where it was :( Anyway, most of the top google links are promotional or WP mirrors. WP is based on other work, right? Well, if there's not much encyclopedic information said about a subject, there's not much WP can really say. Milto LOL pia 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This isn't so much !"furry", as simply using animal-morphic characters to avoid treading on copyright toes. The original concept is a pastche of "Cutey Honey", the comic itself successfully deconstructs the Anglo-US/Soviet/Nu-Nazi trichotomy which has polarised world politics since 1933, and it's notable in the sense that people inside and outside the field know of it. Were this a vote (which I know it isn't) I would be inclined to the keep side of the "argument", but as it isn't .... -- Simon Cursitor 13:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment since posting the above, User:WunNation has been indefinitely blocked as a single purpose trolling account. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
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.