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 delete. This is already mentioned at the Garfield article, and what isn't, is original research. - Bobet 12:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that this page be deleted and the material, minus the silly, unsubstantiated "starvation" rumors, merged back into Garfield. These strips do not merit a standalone page, and the rumors and "theories" which, for all we know, originated on Wikipedia, need to be purged. Thunderbunny 00:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Although the starvation rumors are unsubstanciated and seem to have already been removed, the story deserves its own entry because of the controversy it has caused among fans. I would go as far as to say that the entry should contain a reference to the starvation theory but mention what the author has said about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.7.143.249 (talk • contribs) .
  • — Possible single purpose account: 65.7.143.249 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.x

• Definately don't agree, it is a legitimate, web-based theory that stands an equal right to be shown. POssibly merge the whole article into the garfield thread, under a heading of "theories" or some such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.7.76.152 (talk • contribs) .
  • — Possible single purpose account: 80.7.76.152 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• These strips provide legitimate and interesting theories. Do not delete this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.202.86.200 (talk • contribs) .
  • 68.202.86.200 has made numerous edits, all (but this one) to Carlos Mencia.

• This page should not be deleted since it does have merit to be hear as much as anything else on Wikipedia. If we let others tell us what we can and can't see than we'd be in Nazi Germany and not the USA!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.55.37.115 (talk • contribs) .
  • Eighth edit from this IP.
    • All which have been deleted/reverted/marked as gibberish, I might add. Thunderbunny 06:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • delete and disregard above unsigned comment, please 24.9.10.235 05:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with the request to delete this page. There is nothing 'silly' about the 'starvation theories' as they are just that; theories. Never once is it stated that any one of those theories are fact, and I like the idea of having alternative viewpoints available to read. Babywiththepower 00:05, 9 August 2006 (CST)
  • — Possible single purpose account: Babywiththepower (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..

• I frankly have to wholly agree with Thunderbunny for the reasons he has stated, and would also like to vote for delete/merge. It was perfectly fine in the Garfield article. 24.9.10.235 05:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I vote against deletion - either keep the page or merge the content back into the original Garfield article. The dead/starvation theories arise quite convincingly from the Halloween strips themselves. The similarity to the animated short ""Feline Fantasies" is also provocative and Jim Davis' comments about the strips provide an interesting insight that would be lost with deletion. Keep the page. Jhurlburt 06:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Either provide reliable sources for 'some people' or reduce and merge into the main article (a single paragraph should be enough). Mr Stephen 08:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands, the article fails WP:OR - if some suitable references can be added, I'd switch, but I canna find any. WilyD 12:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Do Not Delete". These strips stand alone as an urban legend of sorts, and merit their own page. Odenkirk 10:20, 9 August 2006 (EST)

• "Do Not Delete". There are a number of fan sites that have posted the comics in question discuss some of the theories mentioned in the article. These theories are not unique to Wikipedia so I hardly thinks it's OR.... however.... I doubt fan sites are considered suitable references (are they?). 128.192.56.189 20:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Do Not Delete". Why would anyone want to delete this? I think it is really interesting and hardly controversial. Maybe incorporate into the regular Garfield entry, but do not delete! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.107.56.222 (talk • contribs) .

• Do not delete agree with above Subwayguy 21:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Original research removed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Gazpacho 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tommy Westphall. It strikes me as similar - an interesting and fun way of interpreting a fictional work which was almost certainly not intended by the creators. Plus it didn't violate WP:OR when it was just a paragraph in the Garfield article. Alternatively, merge with Garfield. 67.10.175.242 17:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Who is Tommy Westphall? Thunderbunny 05:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• *****Why is this such a big fuss?!***** It's his own theory... I'm sure theres tons of stuff in the dictionary that is controversial. So why is this different?? gosh! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.239.194.101 (talk • contribs) .
  • — Possible single purpose account: 167.239.194.101 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Do not delete. If you don't like it, don't view it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.168.7.45 (talk • contribs) .
  • — Possible single purpose account: 66.168.7.45 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • That would be a valid argument if Wikipedia were intended to be a "free speech" sounding board, where absolutely anyone could sign on and post absolutely anything they wanted without fear of deletion. It's not. It's an encyclopedia. Thunderbunny 02:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete. Jim Davis has spoken on the matter. http://www.ratioanalysis.biz/?p=1890 128.192.56.190 17:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Possible single purpose account: 128.192.56.190 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • So? Thunderbunny 02:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Garfield Halloween Strips" returns three hits on google, two of which are Wikipedia. Thunderbunny 04:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Is Garfield dead?" brings in a bunch of related links. Are you recommending we change the title of the page to something more Google friendly? 68.190.48.20 13:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the strip's article. —tregoweth (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC) I hadn't looked at the current Garfield article when I commented; change to delete. —tregoweth (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete, it is a part of Garfield, even as a rumor. Clean it up and have it renamed to Garfield Rumors. It is still worthy to be an article 86.137.56.98 21:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Possible single purpose account: 86.137.56.98 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Delete. This article is nothing but original research and unreliable sources. Of the five references, three are primary sources (the actual strips) and two are blogs (which are not reliable sources). Are we to take a blog author's word that someone else met Jim Davis and Jim Davis laughed about this? There's no reason to doubt it, but that doesn't make the material suitable for Wikipedia, either. Also, I'm not sure what Tregoweth wants to merge to the main article; there's nothing verifiable here that isn't in the main article already. Powers ^T 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Delete" For what it's worth, I'm the one who posted the Jim Davis quote on BoingBoing. Though you have nobody's word but my own, if you click on my link in the posting, you'll be directed to my listing on creativehotlist. There, you can see my resume and some of my licensed work. Though this is hardly rock-solid verification, it does give you some reason to believe that I at least work at Hallmark (in the license design department) and there is a possibility that I went to Muncie and met with Jim... which is quite true. He said what he said and I repeated it as accurately as I could. Of course the theories are more fun, so continue to believe what you like. Cabooglio 20:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that we don't believe you, Cabooglio. It's that we have no way of showing readers that you're telling the truth. That's why we have the policies we do. Only part of it is making sure our information is accurate; the big thing is making sure our information is verifiable. That means being published in a reliable source, and a blog just doesn't count. Powers ^T 23:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A situation very similar to this is described at Wikipedia:Verifiability. It's nothing personal, Cabooglio. Mr Stephen 23:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete. The interest in this odd, yet interesting, subsection of Garfield has become larger and larger--arguably after the creation of the garfieldisdead.ytmnd.com/ Garfield Is Dead page. Wikipedia can do what no other encyclopedia can--hold an infinite number of articles on highly specific information. For my two cents, there might be an entire article on just Garfield criticism.

Additionally, the "home" entry is very complete and well-written; I think merging would detract from its comprehensiveness and clarity. Gorjus 20:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This storyline seems to have proven semi-notability, and as Jim Davis has already refuted the theories, the article can have an accurate and resolved viewpoint. The lack of Google Hits on "Garfield Halloween Strips" is not meaningful, as I have seen these strips referred to under many names, none being "Garfield Halloween Strips", which simply constitutes a rename of the article. Tom 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not the issue here. Verifiability and Original Research are. Powers ^T 23:09, 14 August 2006 (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.