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 No clear consensus. The opinion is pretty much split. Note I've taken JamesBurns out of the equation. I'd suggest interested parties continue the discussion at the article talk page to work out the best way to deal with the content of the article, be that merging or reatining as a separate article. The consensus seems to be that the information within the article is worth retainig, therefore the rest can be worked out through consensus and tools in an editorial toolbox rather than an admin's one. Hiding T 11:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rod (Avenue Q) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Character is not notable on its own; no information here that's not in Avenue Q. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 18:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Delete per DHowell not independently notable, and not a likely search term as is; adequately covered at Avenue Q. JJL (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge: Honestly, I'm not sure. The character is an important part of Avenue Q, which is highly notable. However, it doesn't seem to have much of a purpose by itself, so merging it is a possibility. I'm undecided, but as more of an inclusionist than a deletionist, I think that we might as well keep the article. It needs work though, so if someone has the time to fix it up, I would support the article. Otherwise, the article should be merged. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to point out that there's been a merge proposal tag on this article for over nine months now, which was never discussed at all. I think at this point that there's nothing left to merge anyway--all the information seems to be included in the main article already. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 04:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: nothing left to merge and not independently notable. JamesBurns (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
• Redirect If material is already merged, the history should go right along with the merge. As for the plausibility of the redirect. The existence of Rod (disambiguation) were the character could be reasonably listed would make it useful. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a matter of fact, the character is listed on the disambig page, but I would argue that it doesn't really belong there--there are plenty of fictional characters named "Rod" out there, but he's the only one listed. I would support a redirect, though. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 20:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a new "Characters in " article. The main article on the show is already a little cumbersome, and the character descriptions there minimal. Not that this article is a good one, because apparently a good deal of the point of this character --and others--is that they're parodies of much more notable fictional character from Sesame Street, and it doesn't mention it. Discussions of this should be found and added. But in any event, let's get this settled before we have to deal with articles on all the other characters so we can have some degree of consistency. At this point we only have Trekkie Monster. DGG (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all character pages. They say nothing notable that isn't stated in the Avenue Q article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Strong keep This puppet was "interviewed" by The New York Times, had significant coverage in the Los Angeles Times, moderated a debate between puppet versions of John Kerry and George W. Bush, attended the 2004 Republican National Convention where he was described as "New York's most famous (and perhaps only) gay Republican puppet" by USA Today... Rod is plainly notable. DHowell (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I submit that the all of these links are to instances of self-publicity by the show's producers, and are therefore not independent of their subject. A direct quote from the CTV.ca article on the puppet debate: "Like the weather, the reasons for an 'Avenue Q' puppet debate — other than pure publicity stunt — were cloudy." The purpose of the three "RNC" articles (from NY Times, LA Times, and USA Today) all seem to be to draw attention to the fact that the GOP delegates didn't go and see Avenue Q during the convention. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 05:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the puppet debate is already covered at Avenue Q#Avenue Q promotional events. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 05:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whatever the purpose of the coverage, it's still significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The guideline does not give an exemption for "publicity" coverage. None of the newspapers were required to print this "self-publicity" in their papers, they chose to do so because they felt it was "worthy of notice". DHowell (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sourcing presented. Perhaps not Kermit the frog but in puppetland he's huge. And given Bert and Ernie are neither confirming or denying the gay rumors this is likely the most famous gay puppet in the world. -- Banjeboi 06:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Skiasaurus. All the facts are covered in the Avenue Q article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2009 (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.