Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainy Smurf (2nd nomination)

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 redirect‎ to List of The Smurfs characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brainy Smurf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed for NPP. This article was AfD'd previously in 2011, where sources were presented, however I do not believe any of these sources actually help its case given modern standards. All of the sources presented were passing mentions where the character is used as a brief mention with no sigcov. Following this discussion of keep, a discussion to merge was had on the talk page, which reached a conclusion to merge. This was undone recently under the grounds that the character is important and has other language articles, which does not help it pass the GNG. Redirect to List of The Smurfs characters? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Redirect to List of The Smurfs characters - Of the sources currently in the article, only one of them actually has significant coverage specifically on the character, and I am somewhat dubious as to whether it would count as a reliable source. The handful of sources presented in the previous AFD were all extremely trivial mentions of the character that would not help pass the WP:GNG. Searches are not bringing up significant coverage on the character that would justify an independent article separate from the franchise character article. The argument that it should be kept because other language Wikipedias have articles is not a valid argument itself, especially considering that most of them don't, and the one I found that did, in the French Wikipedia, also doesn't cite any valid sources. Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect per Rorshacma. We shouldn't be re-creating articles unless new significant coverage is found and cited. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect, clearly fails WP:GNG, best coverage is a newspaper reprint of a blog that simply states Tarantino won't be involved in this role in a big screen ([1]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect without significant coverage in a reliable source where the topic is the primary focus, this character just doesn't rise to the level of dedicated article.

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.