Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Shabadoo (2nd nomination)

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 Merge and delete to The Last Temptation of Homer' ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joey Shabadoo

Joey Shabadoo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Previously debated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Shabadoo, which was closed early; consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 24 was that a full five-day debate made more sense. This is a procedural nomination, but my own opinion is delete; the term's importance outside of the single Simpsons episode does not seem to be verifiable. Chick Bowen 20:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Note. I have now notified all participants in the first AfD of the relisting. Chick Bowen 20:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into The Last Temptation of Homer Will ^(talk) 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into List of one-time characters from The Simpsons. It seems insufficient for an entire article but could be mentioned their (and maybe linked off of The Last Temptation of Homer per Will). meshach 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge any good info that may ever appear. Lacks WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, violates WP:NOR and WP:NEO; generally this has none of the marks of a good idea and all of the marks of a bad one. I thought WP:SNOW was the applicable policy on the quick closure the first time, but if there are people who really think this does deserve a full debate, I am looking forward to learning why... Deltopia 21:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If a deletion is contested (which this one was: here) then there needs to be reopening of the debate whether or not to delete the article. See WP:DRV/CR meshach 21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that WP:SNOW is not policy; it is an essay based on a policy, WP:IAR. The feeling at the deletion review was that it did not apply here, since there was a rationally argued "keep" vote and the potential for more sources to be added over the course of the AfD. Chick Bowen 00:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that "Merge" is a subspecies of "Keep" for GFDL compliance reasons we keep the history of edits we merge into other articles and leave the original article as a redirect. Eluchil404 21:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- my views are as per before, I will give more thorough reasoning and sourcing as I find time later today. cheers,JJJ999 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (again) per nom. "References" do not support the assertions contained in the article. Unverifiable. WP:NN in any case. --Evb-wiki 22:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Meshach, although there's really not much to merge; the article itself is flakey. JuJube 23:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nn neologism. Smashville 23:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect per Mesach and my comments in the DRV. --W.marsh 23:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no real notability beyond a cartoon show. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N and WP:V. V-train 02:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my reasoning in my original nomination here.--Isotope23 ^talk 04:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Meshach. The "sources" given are: an entry in a dictionary for neologisms and such; a humor blogger who uses that name; and somebody's signature to a sports board. Blatantly fails notability. --Orange Mike 16:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, there's no purpose in writing an article about every one-off joke in The Simpsons. If the joke in question was relevant to the episode, it could be mentioned there (but it isn't, and episode guides aren't lists of every joke in an episode). The content beyond the Simpsons is blatant original research that isn't backed by any source, it's just hypotheses and links to random mentions of the name (+urbandictionary, which isn't a reliable source). - Bobet 18:23, 5 November 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.