Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curly Joe Puppet

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 Delete. No established editor has put forward an argument for retention here, so the decision is easy and unanimous. Xoloz (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Joe Puppet

Was previously speedied by User:Alabamaboy and contested (see user's talk page). I'm guessing it was deleted, as the date on that was October 22nd while the page was created on December 8th.

Anyway, a Google search turns up no hits aside from those on Wikipedia. Proposing delete per WP:NOTABILITY. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was not going back and looking over the deletion of the previous article. It was not deleted for notability but for "not asserting it's importance." Though the original article was deleted on that criteria, this separate article I believe satisfies that criteria. And as original creator of this article obviously feel that this article should not be deleted.

Oh and a search on Google for Curly Joe (the characters actual name) brings up mainly things on the Three Stooges character, who is undeniably a more popular character Underground Revolution (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I know the two other contributors to the article (one who created your referenced earlier article) will no doubt have opinions about this deletionUnderground Revolution (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article fails Wikipedia's fictional character notability guidelines, and does not use real-world sources to verify its notability. If you can remedy this that would be great. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is produced during the course of this AfD, per Wikipedia:Notability. --Stormie (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a well written article on a media character of significance. Given, source materials could use improvement, but tag it as lacking sources and let it be improved rather than delete a fairly extensive article.CJ fan (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Note: WP:SPA. Ravenna1961 (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be added to show notability, currently it doesn't even meet the core criteria of verifiability. RMHED (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability or verifiability and I am unclear as to its significance per the GS referenced in the nom. Eusebeus (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable secondary sources are found (I didn't have much luck), and added to the article. Ravenna1961 (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Just concerning your search for musical medley, the first two CJ films productions as I understand it were almost unheard of and few people have ever seen the first two, so it is no doubt that the first two would not produce any results. Infact they were only made for VHS. I'm new to wikipedia and created my account just for this article, but can I use sources if there content is not found online? Such as magazines, or local non-internet newspapers? CJ fan (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If they are reputable, reliable sources, yes. For example, a high school newspaper is not a reputable source. See WP:CITE for more information. Thank you, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:25, 16 December 2007 (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.