Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 22

22 June 2006

Fluffy (The Lion King)

This article was speedy deleted by RasputinAXP on June 19th, following a very short (less than 20 mins) AfD discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluffy (The Lion King). I didn't have a chance to read the article, but I'm assuming it refers to the character that appears in the last scene of the movie - Simba and Nala's cub. The fact that this character was named "Fluffy" by the production team is well-documented: it's referenced in the director's commentary on the DVD, in the book "The Art of The Lion King", and, as I recall, in the sleeve notes to the Laserdisc. It may, of course, be argued that this character is non-notable, but I would request that the article be re-created and, at the least, the AfD process is allowed to run to completion. The CSD rules do _not_ include hoax articles, which RasputinAXP gave as his reason for the deletion - and, even if they did, this particular article is not a hoax. Tevildo 21:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy deletion and reopen the AFD. While I believe that it will probably fail the AFD, hoaxes are explicitly not an allowed speedy-deletion criterion. Let the AFD run it's course. Rossami (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy delete not for any reasons pertaining to the AfD but under the criterion that it is a virtual empty article. While it is done in three sentences, they all parse out to "Fluffy is the cub at the end of the movie." That's a definition rather than a discussion and not, IMO (and I'm broader on the "empty" category than many others) and therefore empty. I can understand the motive to let it go back to AfD, as it wasn't properly removed from there under A7. Finally, if it were a hoax, I'd say that hoaxes constitute vandalism and therefore are CSD. Geogre 02:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: I don't have a particular objection to a relist, but I think it will fail. The article, I think is without substance; it is functionally a restatement of the title plus an object: "Fluffy is...the critter in the Lion King." However, the really objectional part, and what AfD voters will no doubt zero in on, is that this is a detail that isn't sought outside of the movie and therefore shouldn't be a breakout article. Will anyone who doesn't know that Fluffy is the name for the cub learn anything from this article? Will he be able to search for this article without knowing that it's the cub in The Lion King? I.e. it's unsearchable and zero sum as a link from the article on the movie. Therefore, it's functionally nil. No insult intended, but there is really no informational content. Geogre 03:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Georgre. This is half a sentence at the end of the main article. Nobody's goign to search for it separately. Just zis Guy you know? 12:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is my first foray into DRV, so I apologise if this comment is inappropriate or is covering ground that's already been gone over. However, I still would like to say that the two above opinions would, IMO, be better in an AfD context. My - is "complaint" too strong a word? - is that this article was (presumably) G3'd, and that that G3 was incorrect. If the admin participants in this discussion can decide that the article should have been A3'd or A7'd instead, without non-admin input, then I have no further comment to make, and will let the discussion continue. That being said, I still feel that the general issue of the character's notability or the article's content should be discussed in AfD rather than here, and that the general population of editors should be given the opportunity to make any possible improvements to the article to counter such arguments. But, you're the admins, and I'm not. It's your decision. :) Tevildo 18:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse relisting Reluctantly; though it seems like a waste of time given the likelihood of it being deleted again, I can't find anything in WP:SPEEDY that would definitively apply; A7 is close, but it states An article about a _real_ person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject"; this would not seem to apply to a fictional character. A3 would not apply because a context is clearly defined ("a character (albeit minor) in a very notable movie"). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but I have no objections to its being recreated iff the name is sourced. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've notified RasputinAXP of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as deleting admin. Sorry, I've been on a weekend holiday to North Carolina. I'll be more specific in the future. CSD A1, the article was so short that there was zero possibility of expansion. As Geogre said, it boils down to a one line, unexpandable "Fluffy is the cub at the end of the Lion King." I was too fast on the delete summary box and hit H instead of C to pop up my list, A1 being my first CSD that comes up and "hoax" being the first H that comes up.  RasputinAXP  c 00:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per RasputinAXP and Geogre. -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)