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. (non-admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dipper Pines[edit]

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

The page is not notable as per the guidelines and is supposed to redirect at Gravity Falls. Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to the main Gravity Falls article. As much as I love the actual show, there really isn't much available in the way of sources that doesn't just fall purely into WP:PLOT. There's really nothing to show that Dipper is particularly notable himself, outside of the general notability of the show. Though, as the Nominator themself is advocating a redirect rather than a deletion, I don't think AFD is the appropriate place for the discussion. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - First off, this is an invalid AfD as it's a nomination for merge. Second, nominator's argument is WP:ITSNOTABLE, which is a non-argument. Nominator has not demonstrated the lack of notability of the article subject. Article subject is the protagonist of a popular cartoon. Though it's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, having articles about the protagonists of TV shows is common practice on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, however, while there is no doubt that the show is notable, there is nothing to show that Dipper has the notability himself to sustain an article independent of the show's. The sources present in the article speak of him only in terms of WP:PLOT, and offer no meaningful analysis of the character or indication that he is independently notable. I have likewise not been able to locate any additional sources that do so. As is, the article is an unneeded WP:SPLIT from the character section of the main Gravity Falls article, as it offers no sources or information that require its own page.64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am redirecting this page to Gravity Falls. If you have any queries, then, talk it on my talk page --Shane Cyrus (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I undid it. I am not AGF as you have had 2 final warnings about removing AfD templates. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, with the way the nominator created the discussion in the wrong place to begin with, and is begining to act without consensus, I don't suppose its possible that this AFD can just be closed prematurely, and have a merge/redirect discussion created in the appropriate place instead, is there?64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominator claims "as per the guidelines" yet lists none that this article is in violation of. Sounds like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Antoshi ☏ ★ 19:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator has failed to prove his argument. The article has enough reliable sources, with significant coverage and no apparent original research, almost all of the sources are secondary, I don't think that the article should be redirected or removed from Wikipedia. Phill24th (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2014 (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.