Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 Points of interest related to Fictional characters on Wikipedia 
Category - Deletions
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Fictional characters. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

  • To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
  • Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Fictional characters}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
  • There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
  • Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
  • You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Fictional characters.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional characters/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page

Some criteria for the inclusion of fictional characters are included in Wikipedia:Fiction.


Contents

[edit] Fictional characters

[edit] Connor Gavin

Connor Gavin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character. Completely OR article. Mikeblas (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie Gavin

Eddie Gavin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character. Completely OR. No improvement after article was tagged for more than six months. Mikeblas (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick (SpongeBob SquarePants)

Patrick (SpongeBob SquarePants) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable enough in and of itself. Plenty of content already at Patrick_Star#Patrick_Star Ged UK (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The characters of Lost (TV series), Desperate Housewives, and numerous other TV shows have pages; the characters of novels (The Lord of the Rings, A Series of Unfortunate Events, etc., etc.) have pages; the characters of radio programs (Adventures in Odyssey, The Lone Ranger, etc.) have pages; how is this less encyclopedic? — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 10:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Because they haven't been cleaned up yet, and/or because they already demonstrate notability and/or could easily demonstrate notability. – sgeureka t•c 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Note to The Man in Question - per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS other stuff exists shouldn't be used as reason for deletion or for keeping articles. In this case though Patrick is a main character of the show appearing in a majority of episodes I can think of and I think probably qualifies as notable because of that. The article does need cleanup and it needs some reliable 3rd party sourcing from somewhere but, isn't an outright delete. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hard keep: notable enough for its own article. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article consists solely of plot details, is wholly lacking reliable sourcing, with no evidence of notability. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Patrick is a notable character in his own right. --Ecoleetage (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to the list of characters page. As an editor who's tried expanding the SpongeBob characters article, I've found that there's not really enough sources out there to justify a separate article at this point. Same for the Squidward article. Bill (talk|contribs) 14:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As probably the second most important character in the very popular TV series, I do not believe it should be deleted. --Hamster X (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per pd_THOR. It fails WP:N, and is unsourced. GreenJoe 15:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable popular culture character. Even a quick Google News and Books search shows an absolute tidal wave of potential sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect Patrick Star was redirected to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters in December 2007, and starting a new article to circumvent redirection is not the solution (I assume this wasn't done maliciously). The character is already described in detail at the LoC, and the article should not be recreated as a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR. Redirection or deletion will serve until then. – sgeureka t•c 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As noted by sgeureka, the main Patrick article was redirected months ago. This should be speedily closed, and any attempts to bring the Patrick article back be discussed on that talk page, not here. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect - When Patrick Star was redirected, it was protected to stop recreation without out-of-universe notability. The new article, Patrick (SpongeBob SquarePants), whether by accident or design, circumvents this discussion. Oh, and I see no indication of real world notability either. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep He is a main character in a hit show, it does not need to be redirected ethier, he is his own character. — Mike T Boss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (UTC).
  • Speedy keep. This is not an occasionally recurring character but the main character's best friend and a major, notable character in his own right. I admit to watching the show every so often and I have never seen an episode without Patrick. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
That is not a speedy keep reason. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep he is the a main character on the show. article passes WP:FICT as it is covered in reliable sources Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 00:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh? And which ones would those be? seresin ( ¡? ) 05:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: FWIW, a Google search of "Patrick Star" turns up more than 13,000,000 Google hits. He has verifiable third-party references, he is a major character on a major television presentation, seems to pass WP:FICT (after an admittedly cursory glance) and, thankfully, is not a Pokemon, on which we seem to have articles by the truckload. Ditto characters in every anime and manga on the planet. If this were one of the secondary or tertiary characters, I'd agree that a redirect is in order. This character is in every episode I have ever seen. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Claiming there are reliable, third-party sources that grant notability is not the same as providing them. If this character is as integral and notable as you so claim, these sources should be bountiful. Articles need out of universe notability, not in universe notability to remain as an article. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
With thirteen million Googles, that shouldn't be too much of a problem.  :) I'll add a couple. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Done, including Nickelodeon's sites for North America and Asia, an elaborate fansite at [1] and even an Amazon.com link to a Beanie Baby version of the character. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: 8,320,000 Google image hits and was co-star (no pun intended) of a major motion picture as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe it meets notability requirements.Oroso (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. especially with the reliable sources recently added. Ben1283 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • And I removed most of these "reliable" sources again as they are not reliable at all (see edit summary). – sgeureka t•c 18:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Some of the ones you removed were not reliable sources, but I re-added a couple that are Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 21:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Agreed <Baseballfan789 (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Per WP:EL, Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. This clearly refers to "Patrickstar.org, an unofficial fansite", which hosts copyrighted videos (and "unofficial fansite" just screams unreliable, by the way). Why you re-added the voice actor's imdb page to the EL setion is not apparent to me, as it just appears to WP:GAME the system by asserting that this has any relevance in the character's notability (which is not the case). But I won't edit-war. The closing admin will either read this reply and see my point, or he won't (in which case the article will remain notability-tagged and be AfDed again in a few months). – sgeureka t•c 21:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment if the article is kept, the content should be moved to Patrick Star (which is currently a redirect to the character list) per Wikipedia naming conventions Ben1283 (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Good idea. As for the sources, a couple of them were somewhat random. I thought an elaborate fansite would be a good third-party source, but my apologies if it wasn't. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
comment I think the issue with those third party sites was simply that they referred straight back to wikipedia, thus creating a useless circular reference
  • Redirect. Without sources or out-of-universe info, there's no need for a separate article. Mr. Absurd (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. The character doesn't have his own TV series or a series of theatrical shorts like a Warner Brothers or Disney character, but he is an integral part of the storylines and has been for nearly a decade. By comparison, Warner's Goofy Gophers were featured in a grand total of only nine theatrical shorts...and they have an article. Deservedly so, I might add. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Garrity

Sean Garrity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

In-univese biography of a fictional character. This topic is completely OR and unreferenced, and does not establish the notability of the character. Removing the OR material leaves us with no content for the article, so I'm listing it for deletion. Mikeblas (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - article has had plenty of time for someone to add a ref. or two, it's been around since 2006. Gatoclass (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the entry on him in the list of characters, which seems adequate for the purpose or could be expanded a bit. DGG (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Buckton (Home and Away)

Charlie Buckton (Home and Away) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This nomination also includes the article :Jai Fernandez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This has gone to an Afd discussion as the Proposal to delete Charlie Buckton was objected to. The reason the PROD was opposed was due to the fact that WP:FICT is a proposal and not a guideline. Fair enough, but this proposal is based on several already standing guidelines which should be analyzed when deciding what to do with this article.

Before i go through the reasons why this article should be deleted. It should be noted that it was decided to delete several articles recently based on the notability arguments i present here. Each case is individual however it may be good to look at. The discussion can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Harris

WP:N states that a subject is considered notable, if it has recicved significant real world coverage. I did a google search and the only remotley notable thing i found was a newspaper photo gallery, with the character and it was only included because the actress is notable. Remember this is an article about the character.

WP:WAF states 'When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline and the more specific notability guideline for fiction-related subjects by including independent reliable secondary sources.'

My point is that these two characters do not meet notability guidelines and as a result an article is not warranted. When more information is avaliable regarding this character it should be included in List of current Home and Away characters. It should be noted that very few of the Home and Away characters have their own articles and the only characters that have thier own articles are those that are considered notable and have been on the show for several years, including Alf Stewart and Irene Roberts. (There are others because i havn't got around to merging them into the list article, its the middle of exams for me, but ill get around to it in the holidays. ) Printer222 (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Natural, my understanding is that the character is new so at this point she is not notable. I object to many of the recent decisions to delete Soap Characters as a lot seem to be based on WP:Fict. I also believe that many of these articles can be written with sources that show they've been in notable storylines. It's more of a case of finding them. I also believe strongly that the guideline WP:Notable makes it far too difficult for fictional characters to actually be notable and that people are wrongly taking it as a policy. My belief is that if the soap character has 1) been in notable storylines 2) has had an influence on outcome of the show for the shows season or a period of time and 3) the article is well sourced then they should always be kept. However, this seems to fail on all three of these accounts. However, I am unable to judge as I am not familiar with the goings on in the soap it belongs to. Englishrose (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom, or merge to List of current Home and Away characters if this is a notable character in the series. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete both per previous discussion, WP:FICTION and WP:RECENTISM. Moreover, any of these characters has media coverage. We have to extend the cleanup and better organise WP:SOAPS to avoid the creation of these articles in the future. Minor characters can be added in Lists of characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of current Home and Away characters - character does not have wide notability at the moment, but given that there is a merge target it might as well be sent there. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC).
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 Redirected to Return of the Living Dead (film series). If there's actually anything encyclopedic to be merged there, then it can be. Black Kite 16:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tarman

Tarman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete article about supporting character from a horror film. This character does not warrant a separate article. Doczilla STOMP! 16:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. And merge into the living dead series article. Renee (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to The Return of the Living Dead, where the character was introduced. Just from a procedural standpoint, you can't "merge and delete", since doing so breaks the chain of the GFDL. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable character which has not received substantial from reliable sources independent of the subject, and the article is mostly plot summary with some OR commentary about the creature's appearance. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as there is no evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Return of the Living Dead (film series). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Return of the Living Dead (film series). --MakE shout! 02:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete a wholly non-notable character, merging would only detract from Return of the Living Dead (film series). RMHED (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - lacks independent notability, warrants nothing beyond a mention in the relevant plot summaries and cast lists. No redirect required. Is he even called "Tarman" in the official credits? I don't believe the character is referred to by that name in dialogue. Otto4711 (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Although I must admit my amusement at seeing his profession listed as "eating brains." Otto4711 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable character that is very much so. Razorflame 23:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable fictional character covered verifiable in reliable sources. Consistent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on fictional characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep And I'm going to take the time to write a damn good rationale rationale.
It's verifiable, even if those are primary sources and not secondary ones, no interpretation is required (see here). It's neutral.

'Fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV. I understand and appreciate where people are coming from on the 'Yes' vote, but feel that they will only get the unanimity necessary in a wiki environment if they rephrase the issue in those terms. Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion. (Though perhaps only as a stub, of course, since it's very complicated and not many people would know how to express it clearly in layperson's terms). - Jimbo Wales

There are no objective criteria for notability besides the Search Engine Test, which was used here, meaning that individual assessments of notability will display systemic bias. "Non-notable" is generally a non-NPOV designation. The person who authored the article probably believes that the topic is notable enough to be included.
The policy associated with wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information does not discriminate against notability. The policy lists specific things that articles cannot be - none of these taboos mention that non-notable aren't allowed.--Phoenix-wiki 18:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand Jimbo's point, but obscure scientific concepts are not comparable to fictional characters. It should be quite easy to establish notability for a fictional character since reliable sources independent of the subject should be abundant for supposedly notable, popular culture topics that millions of people are aware of (as compared to the few 1000 people that Jimbo mentions for Qubit Field Theory). I have yet to see any such sources and, lack of notability aside, without them I don't see how this article can be expanded beyond plot summary and original research. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The article is referenced with primary sources, so it isn't really OR, though secondary sources would be more desireable, and I'm sure there are many. Apart from taht, i don't think its right to delete an article because it can't be expanded.--Phoenix-wiki 20:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If it cannot be expanded beyond plot summary and OR then per WP:NOT there is no content that is suitable for Wikipedia and deletion is the only choice. I suppose the portion on his appearance might not appear to be OR in the strictest sense, but it's merely somebody's commentary detailing the look of character throughout the series. I still don't really see how this creature is notable though without supporting sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete/Redirect There appeared to be sufficient weight to support a redirect before it was relisted. The character itself is not a main one. As we have quite a bit of precedence on redirecting or deleting minor film or TV characters, I believe this is no exception. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would add that shows often have spill-over articles about minor characters. A solution could be to merge the article to List of minor characters in Return of the Living Dead (film series) or somesuch. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


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.

[edit] Fictional character Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time

for occasional archiving

  • Chadam Mihlberger (via WP:PROD on 2007-12-13) Kept; subsequently deleted via AFD