Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Lorraine

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 Martha Speaks characters#Adults. There is not sufficient reason provided by the keep !voters to indicate why this two-sentence stub should not be redirected to the two-sentence mention at List_of_Martha_Speaks_characters#Adults. Should the character expand to a length significant enough for his own article (like the other characters mentioned) there is no prejudice against that, but anything less than a paragraph and it can just be added to the main series' article. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Lorraine

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable character. Could be redirected to List of Martha Speaks characters#Adults, but IP editors appear to believe this character should have a separate article. There's not much more to be said in this article than there is in the list of Martha Speaks characters. PK T(alk) 20:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 20:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, it has been said that it needs more than one source, and I have added another one. Secondly, I know that Eric Cartman and a deleted Danny Lorraine fulfills WP:N, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored, and any child can be exposed to inappropriate content on Wikipedia. Eric Cartman does a lot of horrible things, but Danny is from an educational children's show about vocabulary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:817C:1764:E094:F0F:12EC:3D7B (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC) — 2407:7000:817C:1764:E094:F0F:12EC:3D7B (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The new reference is to IMDB, which is not considered a Wikipedia:Reliable source, and it was added for more text about the voice actor, not the character. PK T(alk) 11:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PKT: I removed the unreliable source and added a new reliable one. 2407:7000:817C:1799:B1FE:7099:6656:4B92 (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)— 2407:7000:817C:1799:B1FE:7099:6656:4B92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Nice try, but simple text is not a reliable source. PK T(alk) 19:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with 2407:7000:817C:1764:E094:F0F:12EC:3D7B. I would say the same thing. Noxiposc (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)— Noxiposc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and/or redirect. The 2407-IP's WP:NOTCENSORED argument doesn’t even make sense. (I think it's a reference to the original creator, who started this as a redirect.) Protection may be necessary per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @LaundryPizza03:

Keep. I agree with the two who want this article kept. Ignafedgjujp (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)— Ignafedgjujp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hmmmm. That's your one and only contribution to Wikipedia? PK T(alk) 21:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: South Park is bad for children. The 2407 IP's WP:NOTCENSORED argument is correct. Do keep and all hail Danny Lorraine! --MarthaSpeaksYESSouthParkNO (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)— MarthaSpeaksYESSouthParkNO (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article....PK T(alk) 15:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with everyone who wants it kept. 2407:7000:817C:1776:80A4:FDBB:4B03:898A (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)— 2407:7000:817C:1776:80A4:FDBB:4B03:898A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect - I don't have to say anymore things. This is the first time I see a picture on Afd and this is not an April Fool Joke. This will be one of the best Afd for April Fool 2019 (so for record purposes we shall keep the entire conversation somewhere above my contribution and use it elsewhere). Touching on GNG issues, the show may be notable, but clearly not characters. Winnie-the-Pooh is one of the rare exception. If we are going to allow this, how many fictional characters will be there. I don't even have to go to talk about sources. This is clearly fail WP:GNG and WP:NOT. --Quek157 (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. @Quek157: and everyone:

The article and this debate are NOT an April Fools joke. Just because one thing has a lot of reliable sources about it and is very popular does NOT mean it deserves to be notable. Winnie the Pooh was banned in a Polish city for not having any pants (I am not saying Winnie the Pooh is bad/inappropriate), but Butters is from a TV show banned in the Indian subcontinent and Russia and not only that, Butters sold his semen to other people, touched Paris Hilton's vagina, and attempted to flood the entire world with his garden hose. Just because one thing is popular does NOT mean it is a good thing, and we should always do what is right, even when it seems that everyone else we know is doing something wrong. If everyone you knew jumped into a pool of Danny Lorraine's feces for money, would you do the same? Of course not! Considering that Wikipedia is not censored, children on this site would have a major chance of being exposed to South Park because even the characters have their own articles. Look at the picture above comparing South Park character Eric Cartman with Danny Lorraine. Furthermore, on Greek Wikipedia, VV Cephei (one of the largest known stars) lacked a Wikipedia article until 2017 (it was even deleted but was then restored), but Eric Cartman had one since 2011. That is an example on how the bad stuff are getting more popular than the amazing and/or good stuff. What side are you on, the side of a character who killed his own parents or a character from a show that both Christian and Muslim children can watch? I choose NOT to be in the majority. We know what is right and wrong, but it is sad that most people on Earth choose to do the wrong things. So I ultimately say that Danny will have to be part of the exceptions of not having an article and South Park characters, if we don't have articles on the fictional characters of many other shows, will have to be non-exceptions. and I hope that you will understand what I am saying. I also hope that what I said will touch you. Thank you. --2407:7000:817C:1701:4CBC:971A:D513:333B (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)— 2407:7000:817C:1701:4CBC:971A:D513:333B (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

delete per nom or redirect Insufficient rs to meet notability.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom: totally insufficient news coverage or in the literature to pass any kind of basic notability guideline.
On a lighter note, this AfD is basically getting trolled by SPAs (now tagged as such). It's strictly only got a few hours to run; if it gets relisted, can we get some e/c protection? —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 09:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pending changes enough already Quek157 (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom or redirect Not independently notable, and not a lot here anyway, not enough for a stand alone.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell has South Park got to do with anything?Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Martha Speaks characters#Adults. If the IP editors recreate the article again, it can always be protected. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 10:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any keep vote not from an SPA?Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nope, at this moment. Quek157 (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Basically what Dlohcierekim said. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 15:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per nom/above. Definitely no reason to relist. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with that there. Exclude the spas, in fact, and it's tuned rather polar around here. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 17:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject is not notable by GNG and notability is NOTINHERITED from the source material. The page can be redirected to the subsection linked in the nom. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and addendum to above !vote that I posted earlier-- The moral virtues of a (fictional or otherwise) subject nor the lack thereof are criteria listed in notability guidelines. A subject can be wholesome, good and endorsed by all morally upright people that know about him as a good and wholesome example, and still not have sufficient in depth coverage in reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and that are independent of the subject to meet notability guidelines. Sourcing in this page is wholly connected with the subject, including OR "seen in the episode "Martha Treads the Boards".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Danny deserves an article and NOT Eric Cartman. If you want this article deleted, then delete Cartman and Butters's articles. 2407:7000:817C:1775:11A5:5958:9B1E:96D5 (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC) — 2407:7000:817C:1775:11A5:5958:9B1E:96D5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Waht about Kenny?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: Kenny('s Wikipedia article) can die. Permanently. 2407:7000:817C:1775:1DB9:2611:967E:A454 (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC) — 2407:7000:817C:1775:1DB9:2611:967E:A454 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and redirect, fails WP:NFICT and WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage. Sam Sailor 08:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
on a side note if this is relisted 3 times I'm sure it will end up with 100 people supporting something. and to the spa this is not all or nothing Quek157 (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also think an SPI may be needed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I check geolocation, all Vodafone in Auckland, new ZealandQuek157 (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT- for closing admin. see how similar the keep arguments are per article creator unblock requests at talkpage [1]. need rangeblock imo Quek157 (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the closing admin will be able to figger this all out. They'd kill Kenny! (blink, blink) The --- Southpark-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burn southpark down! Make Martha God!!!

this thread is displaying a distinct tendency to become SILLY. Now, nobody likes a good laugh more than I do. --montypython'sflyingcircus Right!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2018 (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.