Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoots the Owl

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. Having looked on Google News there's tons of sources that can be added, Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoots the Owl[edit]

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

This character article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of news coverage mentions this character and associated music. Without posting a ton of links, what makes you think, TTN, that this cannot be improved to demonstrate GNG in the article? Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're seeing something I'm not, the results in the above searches show minor mentions in relation to the character's role in the show. There is nothing there to meet the criteria of significant coverage necessary to establish notability, and there is certainly nothing that could be used in the article. TTN (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "You've gotta put down the saxaphone if you want to squeak your duckie.". Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. No joke: TTN couldn't see critical commentary of George Orwell's fiction a while back. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do love how often you bring that up despite how many times I've explained it to you. You seem to want to characterize me as if I commited some great sin in daring to want to merge bunch of irrelevant pages together. The characters themselves are not independently notable in the conventional sense rather than the Wikipedia sense. Analysis of the characters is not based on the merit of the characters, but rather simply the analysis of the overall symbolism of the story. As the characters are simply part of that analysis, they don't require any actual articles to simply regurgitate the same information over and over again. Any plot information and symbolism will easily be able to be discussed in the main article or a split off article for like "analysis of Animal Farm" or some such. My argument is based more on the issue of weight rather than notability. On a more related topic to this discussion, the person you're referencing has not provided an actual rationale based in fact, so your argument and the ones above should not be given any actual value. Despite that, for whatever reason this article will be kept, not improved, and then eventually deleted after people who are not so biased eventually comment on it. TTN (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that all literary character are "irrelevant" is Yahooism at its most puerile. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you characterize me as if I literally do not want a single article on fiction. These characters in particular are just pure symbolism without any other relevant characteristics. The articles in their current state are mostly trash and the articles in their best state would simply be the same exact content you'd find in the main article in its best state. They are simply part of the larger topic that is the analysis of Animal Farm, and it is very doubtful that any of them would have enough relevant content to require articles for that reason. They were merged through a proper discussion, and I really should have pushed to have that consensus enforced back then. You seem like you would be offended by the very thought that there are very likely irrelevant Shakespeare characters that probably don't need articles. TTN (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2016 (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.