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.
Merge a few sentences of each and redirect to
Good Times. The individual articles don't appear warranted, but a summary of these characters (as done with the "minor" characters listed below them) certainly seems appropriate. Gong show 03:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep A google book search for either shows lots of encyclopedic content exists.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 17:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Whether it has been added to the article is irrelevant at AFD. We are discussing whether a topic merits encyclopedic attention (whether there is encyclopedic content for a subject). We do not debate how well that content is incorporated.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 19:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Actually, merely saying encyclopedic content exists doesn't hold much weight; you have to prove it exists. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Those 6 sources given are either brief mentions in encyclopedias, Google Books content generated from Wikipedia content, or brief mentions in a book that references Good Times , which itself was only briefly mentioned. These are not the type of sources that can anchor an article.
Wlmg (
talk) 15:18, 11 July 2013 (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.