Jump to content

Talk:List of Mr. Men: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
comment
mNo edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:


I strongly support the merge proposal, the articles clearly have very small notability. [[User talk:Vintage-master|<font face="Courier New">Vintage-master</font>]] 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support the merge proposal, the articles clearly have very small notability. [[User talk:Vintage-master|<font face="Courier New">Vintage-master</font>]] 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I redirected them all to merged content and then included images from the origonal articles. [[User talk:Vintage-master|<font face="Courier New">Vintage-master</font>]] 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:58, 23 July 2008

Merger proposal

While there exist over 50 articles on the individual Mr. Men books, they are all currently in breach of WP:N, by failing to demonstrate any inherent notability of their own merit. While the parent Mr. Men series is certainly notable, the individual articles all fail WP:N, WP:V and WP:FICT. The Mr. Men as individual entities have simply not received enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to merit existence as more than a List of... article. The articles that do exist are largely devoid of content beyond very brief plot summaries, and lists of trivia. As such, I propose the existing articles are restored to redirect status, directing users to the relevant merged content on this page. Frickative 17:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge. Yngvarr (c) 17:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After having tried to work on those articles some time back, I have to agree that it was not easy to expand them with enough notable material. However the part of the articles that I was never keen on was the plot summaries. The stories are too short and I do not think the whole story should be revealed. I would prefer teasers to spoilers. I would support a merger but it might get extremely long. There is already a list on the main page. Maybe the List of can be broken up in to series such as 1971, 1972, 1978, Adam Hargreaves, Non-English for example. Libro0 (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support the merge proposal, the articles clearly have very small notability. Vintage-master 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected them all to merged content and then included images from the origonal articles. Vintage-master 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]