Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blitzen (Santa Claus's reindeer)

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 merge to Santa Claus's reindeer. Courcelles 00:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzen (Santa Claus's reindeer)[edit]

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

There is already an article for this subject, Santa Claus's reindeer, so we don't need this article. The new material here is dubious and only appears to be supported by unreliable sources. Bennyhui (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A seperate article for each reindeer is totally unecessary. They are not independently notable, and having their own article is disproportionate to the sources and material available.--Korruski^Talk 12:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also think a separate AfD for each reindeer is also totally unnecessary. I'm not going to copy and paste my !vote to seven additional AfDs. Powers ^T 13:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blitzen is a non notable reindeer. Totally unnecessary to have a separate article. Redirect to main article at Santa Claus's reindeer. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable? Really? I don't think that's a productive tack to take, as the evidence for the notability of Santa's reindeer is legion. Powers ^T 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you're joking, but I'm of course referring to Blitzen (now clarified above). Blitzen is already mentioned in the main article and that's good enough. Any details of interest about him can be added there. Rudolph, OTOH, is notable enough to have his own article. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just saying that this is not a case where Blitzen or any other individual reindeer is not notable enough for an article; it's a case where there's simply not enough to say about any individual reindeer (Rudolph aside) to warrant individual articles. If Blitzen was not notable at all, we wouldn't have Santa's reindeer. Powers ^T 22:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we basically agree. I meant that he's not notable enough in his own right, only Rudolph is, but he gets his notability from being one of Santa's Reindeer and belongs there. There's just not enough RS about him independently to make a decent article. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think we do agree, except on the desired outcome of this case. I disagree that notability is at all at issue here; this is solely a matter of content. If there were enough sources to write a full non-stub article on Blitzen, and Santa's reindeer was getting too lengthy to incorporate it all, then a split-out would be fine. It's only because there isn't enough content on individual reindeer that they do not need individual articles. Powers ^T 16:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any reliably sourced material to Santa Claus's reindeer and redirect. Rlendog (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as with the other seven reindeer. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2011 (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.