Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edd Gould

: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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Based on the Keep arguments,” although merging was also not a bad option, the consensus for “Keep” is overwhelming in the discussion. (non-admin closure) NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

=[[:Edd Gould]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Edd Gould}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Edd Gould}})

I've been pondering on nominating this for AfD, and I've finally come to the conclusion that this article is not eligible for standalone notability and should either be deleted or merged into Eddsworld (if that article is even notable at this point with such sketchy sourcing). A WP:BEFORE search brings up obituary-style sources and passing mentions in articles. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 01:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:* Keep: while i agree Eddsworld isn't sourced properly (and that it probably is impossible to source well given the mainstream media snobness about early-2000s internet culture), this article in particular seems pretty well sourced to me. That his notability mostly comes from the continuation of his work by Ridgewell (ie he became notable mostly posthumously) is irrelevant because he is notable. I think EddsWorld should be merged into etiher TomSka or this article, but that's not the subject.

:Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:* There aren't very many in-depth sources (including in the article) but I think there are just enough to support a short article on Gould or Eddsworld. However, most of the coverage is overlapping between Gould and Eddsworld and I don't think there is enough to justify articles on both of them so I would support a merge to Eddsworld (or vice versa). Shapeyness (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:Eddsworld and Edd Gould have alot of disconnected stuff from eachother, and do have their own histories, alot of content involving the show and it's creator reference these articles, so they are definitely in use.

:They should'nt be deleted or merged Charliephere (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Merge with Eddsworld: but really not opposed to Keep as this seems to be a WP:CREATIVE pass. -Mushy Yank. 23:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep There are several primary references and the sourcing can improve, but the subject meets WP:GNG. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Merge or Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:Merge with Eddsworld. Not sure about sourcing individually but I think merging together would be good. Procyon117 (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:Keep Edd's influence on the indie animation community and Internet as a whole is worthy enough to warrant a seperate article Flixxy0 (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Flixxy0}} With your permission, I have bolded your position:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edd_Gould&diff=prev&oldid=1272903088] Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Final relist. There's yet to be a consensus on whether this is a keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.