The Cloggies: The strip is mentioned in a lot of sources but unless in-depth coverage can be found to make this article passable it should be covered at the author’s page.  No idea about the real clog dudes.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 08:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  Dronebogus ( talk ) 08:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Redirect per the editing policy .   We shouldn't use deletion as an improvement tool, it's not designed for that and is counter productive.  Clean it up or let it be, there's no deadline and we're here to collaborate, and there's no real harm here.  Embrace some quirkiness.  🙂 H i ding T 09:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  North America 1000 09:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] “Embrace some quirkiness”?  If that means “let poorly sourced articles that sound like fan blog posts stay” then that’s definitely WP:NOT why Wikipedia exists.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Totally not what I mean, check the edit history of WP:NOT , if you go back far enough you'll see the bits I wrote.  Embrace some quirkiness means exactly what it means.  Happy days, peace hugs and kisses.  H i ding T 21:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per @ Hiding .  In theory could be merged properly into either Private Eye or some sort of "list of Private Eye comic strips" pages, but again no-one's actually going to do the work for that and keeping as-is is preferable that either delete or redirect which is also basically a delete.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 21:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] “Nobody’s actually going to do the work”?  Seriously?  That’s your keep argument?  Dronebogus ( talk ) 12:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it's my "why delete this right now instead of looking at any way of salvaging the content?" argument.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 08:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I was able to find a copy of the Guardian for the date in question .  However the issue here is that it doesn't really back up the claim about a stage performance.  There's mention about a group of cloggies coming on stage, however it comes across like they were a part of the stage performance of Comus rather than a performance by a specific group called the Cloggies.  Something to note is that the term was presumably popularized by this time, so it could have just been a random group of dancers.  Since we don't have any discoverable proof that this group ever existed, I'm removing this section - especially as it (and much of the article) is written in a non-neutral, almost joking tone.  If it's to be kept it needs good sourcing and serious work.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This was and still is a difficult topic to find sourcing for.  Here's the general gist of why it's difficult: It looks like the bulk of Cloggie specific sourcing was most likely published from the 1960s through the 1980s.  The popularity of Cloggie, along with The Forsyte Saga, made him an appealing person to have on TV and radio.  It's at this point where he branched out more and put out other work - although he's still touted as "Billy Tidy of Cloggies and The Forsyte Saga fame".  It's just that at this point both series have ended, so the focus is more on his current work.  What I have been able to find talks about The Cloggies like the reader should be more than familiar with the work in question.  These types of sources, along with the more substantial coverage I've found for the strip (as well as general human interest pieces like this ) and its doomed stage production, heavily imply that there is more sourcing out there.  It's just not available online or at least in places I can access.  It's why I'm willing to argue for a keep here as opposed to a merge.  It just doesn't help that this was written in a joking, fan-like fashion, which to be honest did not make me optimistic that I would find anything.  I was surprised to find what I did.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On a side note, it looks like at one point Tidy was looking into taking legal action against the series Brass , as he felt it was too similar to Cloggies.  Not sure what to do with the source , since I'm a bit hesitant to add it without more.  There's mention of a magazine article that also covered the similarities, so there's definitely more out there.  This is kind of an example of what I wrote above - there's more out there but it's uncovering and accessing it that is the issue here.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your godlike patience cleaning up this article.  You are absolutely right it’s a mess, which previous keep voters seemed to be in denial about.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 23:03, 11 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: withdrawn