Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements
This is a list of transcluded VfD debates involving articles about fictional characters.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional character. I can't tell if it's part of any published game. Kappa 03:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Kappa has corrected me on the finer points of the CSD. As this is admittedly fictional, it does not qualify for a patent nonsense speedy. A search of Google for "Edward Phoenix" Dungeons Dragons culls zero hits, as does a search for "Edward Phoenix" D&D. This is an RPG character vanity page. (To avoid a wall of text in this nom, I've removed my original vote, see history if you want to see it). Fernando Rizo T/C 04:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this fictional fiction, following the (non-)revelations of Google. -- Hoary 06:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. RPG character. Probably fan-made. Not D&D-cruft because D&D-cruft would be of interest to D&D players in general. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only "Edward Phoenix"-related sites on Google have nothing to do with D&D, so he probably isn't even a canonical character and simply fan-made.--Frag 21:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn fiction character. --Etacar11 23:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of whether the Sword of Hope campaign whose article was presumably deleted was a real-D&D-sanctioned module or just somebody's local group playing and self-promoting, I can't suggest it's significant enough for a WP article. The search results reported above make me inclined to vote Delete. Barno 01:20, 9 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 20:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A character in the background of a Mortal Kombat stage. Wow. humblefool®Deletion Reform 05:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, part of the Mortal Combat universe, of interest to fans of the game. 06:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC) unsigned vote by Kappa
Keep, creator of the article; important to MK fans and the history of the game.07:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. Mistercow 10:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. For the love of God, apple pie, and all that is pure and good, this ridiculous entry -- fancruft at best and more likely simply a bunch of made-up nonsense, attaching a name from one medium to a completely random picture in a videogame -- must be destroyed. Nandesuka 12:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FatalityDelete, crufty non-canon claptrap. Proto t c 14:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Annihilate, nn. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 15:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I have a fairly high fancruft tollerance, beeing something of a sci-fi fanatic myself, but this is just crazy, not to mention pure speculation, all that needs to be said about that stage is already in the Blaze article. Delete Image:Hornbuckle.jpg too. --Sherool 15:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete May be worth a reference in the main MK article, but not a separate article. Allegrorondo 16:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for the love of Mike (or somebody). --FuriousFreddy 16:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This page for Hornbuckle might as well be deleted. As the creator of this article, I simply combined the bits of information into the Blaze article, since most of the information was the same. The article Hornbuckle could just simply redirect to Blaze. 18:05, 8 August 2005 (EST)
- Delete sub-trivial non-canon fancruft. --Carnildo 23:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rip it's spine out, er, um, Delete fancruft Youngamerican 13:40, 9 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, so merge. However this character is already given an entry in Krypto the Superdog, so I will call this a redirect. If anybody wishes to merge more content there, use the history tab to access the old versions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Character in a cartoon series not notable enough to get his very own page. Garrett Albright 14:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Krypto the Superdog <drini ☎> 14:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 16:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reason this can't be covered in the show's article. Gamaliel 16:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, but regardless, CLEANUP, as the article is quite sloppy in its current state. People need to learn how to write articles that use more than three words per sentence.--Frag 21:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or at work merge with Krypto the Superdog. Nandesuka 23:22, 8 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Reading Sherool's vote, it appears to be a keep which gives 2k-1d. Since no copyvio has been applied (and a quick Google doesn't turn it up), I'll just close this as a keep. -Splash 00:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, delete or merge Frenchman113 16:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, comprehensive coverage of fictional topics is one of wikipedia's strengths. Kappa 16:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Looks like it might be a copy of Hasbro's blurb. Gazpacho 16:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, hmm yeah it does look a lot like the "bio" of him from the comics (not 100% sure, I only have the Norwegian versions -- somewhere). If it's not a copyvio I don't see any particular reason to delete this. Lots of transformers have seperate articles (although if someone wants to listify some of the minor characters I won't mind). Could do with some wikifying though. --Sherool 17:24, 8 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this character is not notable. Deb 19:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this could probably be a speedy. Some Google hits, but not related to this subject (mostly gamer usernames, etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. -- Visviva 12:14, 19 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was MERGE and DELETE. Relevant info already at Viktor Krum. Jinian 12:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely minor Harry Potter characters who are mentioned in about one paragraph and have no speaking lines. Article is full of assumptions ("They are supportive of their son") that are quite obvious but don't come out directly from the book. Any useful information could be merged with Viktor Krum, otherwise delete. ---Laur 10:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whats next, individual listings for Mr Krum and Mrs Krum? Allegrorondo 13:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, wikipedia's detailed coverage of Harry Potter is one of its strengths. Kappa 13:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, pointless fancruft. Martg76 13:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Potter-cruft. --Calton | Talk 15:57, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a storehouse for ridiculous fictional minutae, regardless of the source's popularity. Lord Bob 17:55, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - origional research/non-canonical/fancruft Sirmob 18:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - however, the few relevant details that actually exist from the book could certainly be merged with Viktor Krum before or after the deletion... Sirmob 18:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect with List of characters in the Harry Potter books or Viktor Krum. Pburka 00:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm a Harry Potter fanboy, but this is useless. Nandesuka 02:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of characters in the Harry Potter books and give these characters a brief mention there. The article is speculation or original research. Nonetheless, they have been present in book 4, so I don't support an outright deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, but perhaps to a list of minor characters in the Harry Potter books (akin to the list which exists for minor Star-Wars characters; and: couldn't we somehow link this to Ashlee Simpson? :) Lectonar 12:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and move to the extensive Wikibook on Harry Potter: Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter --Azertus 09:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into list of minor Harry Potter characters. --86.130.26.225 13:50, 14 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even if an individual piece of fanfiction is notable enough to be on Wikipedia (currently undergoing debate here), a character from it certainly is not. Junkyard prince 01:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, reading that has made my eyes bleed. -Splash 01:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Totally agree with you guys. Was going to vfd it myself. - Hahnchen 01:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Beaten to it. RADICALBENDER★ 01:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete immediately before this scars someone. -- BD2412 talk 01:28, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Splash and BD2412. Delete as a public service. Hamster Sandwich 01:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's painful to even attempt to read --Dysepsion 05:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Ow. Mistercow 06:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete before it can cause any more damage... ahhhh!!! UniReb 07:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Really bad fanfictionDelete with extreme prejudice. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Delete with a large hammer, please. Wow. nn. And painful. RasputinAXP 20:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fanfic. Xaa 23:11, 6 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:30, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Since there's no context whatsoever, I can only assume it falls under WP:NOT regarding Original Research: namely, this is from someone's personal fictional universe. As such, it doesn't belong. The Literate Engineer 08:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless someone adds some context. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Only link is from Dragon. Kappa 12:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.→Encephalon | ζ | ∑ 12:59:07, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
- Delete, and redirect to European dragon. -Sean Curtin 03:23, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
delete, the guy is a rpg player just fooling around.
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Happy Turtle was an ad for a computer game that apparently does not exist 128.112.24.137 03:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I am unsure whether this is an ad or a joke. Eldereft 08:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I guess the comic is at least real, as it's sold on CafePress. Doesn't seem notable though. "Happy Turtle" googles well, but all results seem to be unrelated to whatever this is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Happy Turtle: The Delete Vote. Happy Turtle gets deleted as non-notable by evil Wikipedians. He remains happy. -Splash 23:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like an advertisement. - Sempron 10:07, 10 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was MERGE to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. Already done, so just applying redirect. -Splash 20:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tremendously obscure Star Wars trivia. 128.112.24.137 03:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. Nateji77 05:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Nateji77. Cyclone49 10:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with the merge and redirect. Since neither of those activities requires a VfD, I've gone ahead and done that. Tobycat 18:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I left the VfD tag up since that's only supposed to be removed by an admin after the closing of a vote.Tobycat 20:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. --Maru 02:58, 9 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 19:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comic book fancruft. Lazyhound 02:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No worse than other cruft, and article seems to be reasonable. --Alan Au 04:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We have 4,000 words on the Romulans, why stop there? I have only read a little Hellboy so I am uncertain as to how spoileriffic this is, but it might need a plot-elements revealed warning. Eldereft 08:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Hellboy. Doesn't even need to be a VfD. Proto t c 09:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Kappa 10:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 12:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Main behind-the-scenes villains in Hellboy. Considering the amount of fourth-stringers from Marvel Comics and DC Comics, this is a lot more important storywise. --Pc13 17:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per above. --jonasaurus 21:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- True enough, and it's better than giving them each an individual entry. Keep. DS 22:11, 5 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:56, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Apparent Fanfiction, google brings up no hits and is not part of any Ultima background and should be deleted. RasputinAXP 16:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete either non-canonical or hopelessly obscure. The web has plenty of Ultima info, and this isn't mentioned anywhere I could find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- nn. Delete. Agentsoo 17:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable. Forbsey 18:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per Starblind. Nandesuka 18:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; nn. Jaxl | talk 18:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete contextless, nn. --Etacar11 01:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn--Dysepsion 23:44, 9 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep (but a less cumbersome title may be in order). -- BD2412 talk 05:09, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
50% nonsense, and when that's removed there's not much left. I don't see the point of the list. Tim Pope 18:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonsense. Nandesuka 18:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is no longer nonsense. Factitious 23:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, why shouldn't wikipedia users be able to find examples of fictional characters with autism? Kappa 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete original, um, "research". Or does Melville actually say anywhere that Captain Ahab is "on the autistic spectrum"? Uppland 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are dozens of sources which say that Raymond in Rain Man is is autistic. Kappa 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as much of it is unverifiable original research. FCYTravis 20:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So why not just edit that out? Kappa 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listing is highly subjective, so qualifies as original research. ManoaChild 21:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Abstain. I would vote to keep if enough is left after the subjective elements are removed. ManoaChild 06:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Possibly move to fictional characters with autistism if all speculation (Ralph Wiggum? Bert? Come on...) is removed. Sabine's Sunbird 22:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Changed to tentaive keep now speculation is removed. Sabine's Sunbird 23:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Comment. What is left if all speculation is dropped? (This is not intended as a rhetorical question.) Certainly most, maybe even all, of the second part of the list would have to be dropped. Can all of the characters in the first section be verified? ManoaChild 23:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, all the second section would have to go. It's speculation. A lsit of characters that have autism from fiction is a potentially useful list (and would be a better page with a small line or two about said characters). A page of unsubstanciated guesses, that is not encyclopedic. Sabine's Sunbird 02:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What is left if all speculation is dropped? (This is not intended as a rhetorical question.) Certainly most, maybe even all, of the second part of the list would have to be dropped. Can all of the characters in the first section be verified? ManoaChild 23:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm all for tossing the speculation section of the page, but I think a list of canonically autistic characters is useful and no more unreasonable than any other list. --Ambyr 23:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but delete the speculative part unless the speculation can be documented (e.g. if the speculation was covered in the media). Pburka 01:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, speculation and original research. Kaibabsquirrel 15:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of the list do you think is speculation? They all seem verifiable to me. Factitious 23:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The topic is verifiable and encyclopedic. The objections above all refer to an earlier version of the list that was easily improvable, demonstrating that this was properly a matter for cleanup, not VfD. Factitious 23:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the current version. However, anon appears to intends to add his own speculation - should be watched - Skysmith 08:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article in its current state is useful. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This list is interesting. Brownman40 07:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Interesting, and a worthy study, so far as the fiction actually confirms that the character is autistic and not simply implied nor fanon. - Gilgamesh 04:01, 13 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being a character on Sesame Street does not confer notability. This character appears to be present in very few episodes and in limited capacity. Delete or Merge to Sesame Street. -Soltak 19:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 19:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's completely irrelevant to this discussion. There is absolutely no reason for a sub-sub-sub-supporting character to have their own article. -Soltak 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since wikipiedia is not paper, there's no reason it shouldn't. Kappa 19:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Bravo, Wikipedia isn't paper. You know what else it isn't? A receptable for any useless garbage that pops into someone's head! -Soltak 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But the point is valid. Notability is not written in the deletion policy guidelines. If we can't find a more objective reason to delete an article than notability, perhaps we should assume it may be notable to someone else. Mistercow 07:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Many things and people are notable to one people or a few people, but I think the key to notability here on Wikipedia for personalities is when something can be talked about in a random conversation with most people you know or just see on the street and they can note who they are. This obviously is still a little too broad for a personal policy, but it's a starting point. "Dinger" doesn't meet that qualification, he(it?) should be merged into the minor characters article. Also, is it just me, or has Kappa voted to keep in every vfd he's been in? I assume that the paper comment is on the possible limitlessness of Wikipedia since it has no specific spatial qualities. Otherwise, I wish you told me earlier because I tried to make Origami out of some articles, and it wasn't pretty ;-) Karmafist 19:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But the point is valid. Notability is not written in the deletion policy guidelines. If we can't find a more objective reason to delete an article than notability, perhaps we should assume it may be notable to someone else. Mistercow 07:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Bravo, Wikipedia isn't paper. You know what else it isn't? A receptable for any useless garbage that pops into someone's head! -Soltak 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since wikipiedia is not paper, there's no reason it shouldn't. Kappa 19:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's completely irrelevant to this discussion. There is absolutely no reason for a sub-sub-sub-supporting character to have their own article. -Soltak 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a List of minor Sesame Street characters if anyone wants to bother. Otherwise, delete with extreme prejudice. FCYTravis 19:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand or merge --Tim Pope 19:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. Wikipedia is not toilet paper, either. --Carnildo 20:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rewrite. Dinger was the name of the band Andy Bell was in before Erasure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- I like that. Could this be redirected to Andy Bell (singer) for the time being? - Lucky 6.9 00:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with me, though the current Andy Bell (singer) article doesn't seem to mention Dinger. It's just something I happen to know. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:20, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as written. The Dinger is about as significant to Sesame Street as Babu Bhat is to Seinfeld. ESkog 16:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sesame Street, or rewrite as a dab page if the Andy Bell (singer) connection can be verified (this name isn't mentioned in that article currently). Or simply Delete if no one wants to bother making the dab page, or if there is no consensus on where to redir. In any case do not keep in the present form. DES (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The Andy Bell / Dinger connection can definitely be verified. Here's just a few examples from four completely different websites EIL's Dinger discography ... Andy mentions Dinger in an interview ... an Andy bio mentioning Dinger ... an erasure Discography with Dinger record scan Seriously, I din't make it up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, August 10, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 20:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being a character on Arthur does not confer notability, regardless of the prevalence of this character on the show. The show is notability, every character and plot device is not. Delete or Merge to Arthur (cartoon). -Soltak 19:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, prevalent character on major network show. Kappa 19:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't watched the show in years but I know that Bionic Bunny isn't "prevalent." I also know that PBS, while extremely important, isn't a "major network." -Soltak 19:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I misunderstood. Anyway keep, useful information for fans of the show. Kappa 19:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't watched the show in years but I know that Bionic Bunny isn't "prevalent." I also know that PBS, while extremely important, isn't a "major network." -Soltak 19:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I think this could be expanded. Keep. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect to Arthur. Even one of the most-well-known characters in the show, Buster Baxter, redirects to the article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Arthur. Being the father of two young children I've seen this show a lot. Al 20:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Arthur (cartoon). Bionic Bunny is a pretty small part of the show, and he should have an overview there like the other characters. Eventually, the cast list and episode list could split off of the main article, but a character like Bionic Bunny doesn't deserve his own page, and we could merge this without losing any content.-LtNOWIS 20:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Keep, since article has been expanded.-LtNOWIS 20:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or at the very least don't redirect to the cartoon. Bionic Bunny is also a character in the books, and even has his own spin-off (The Bionic Bunny Show, ISBN 0316109924) which predates the Arthur cartoon show by more than a decade. The Bionic Bunny Show was also made into an episode of Reading Rainbow. BB also has merchandise, such as a doll, and scores decently on Google (16,800 Google hits). Redirecting Bionic Bunny to the Arthur TV show would be like redirecting Bugs Bunny to Space Jam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- If the article is expanded to reflect how prevalent the Bionic Bunny character actually is I'll be happy to withdraw my vfd request. As the article currently stands, I wouldn't have known any of that about the books (and didn't!) without you saying something. -Soltak 21:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a very good point there, my friend. I'll expand it now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- If the article is expanded to reflect how prevalent the Bionic Bunny character actually is I'll be happy to withdraw my vfd request. As the article currently stands, I wouldn't have known any of that about the books (and didn't!) without you saying something. -Soltak 21:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is an insignificant subject, but compared to some other things we keep, this isn't that bad. BB definently a recurring character in the Arthurverse. ike9898 21:04, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Andrew Lenahan CanadianCaesar 22:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Almafeta 22:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Request Withdrawn following large-scale expansion by Starblind. Great job on the expansion, by the way :-) -Soltak 22:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. It's a solid 12 paragraphs now. No hard feelings, of course, since the previous stub was mighty slim, and I fully understand why someone might nominate it for VfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, if it's necessary... Wow. Starblind, this is one of the reasons Wikipedia is great. Almafeta 21:27, 6 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. There is some small support for merge; that is not something on which this discussion need reach a conclusion. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being a character on Sesame Street does not confer notability. This character appears to be present in very few episodes and in limited capacity. Delete or Merge to Sesame Street. -Soltak 21:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Honkers actually appear in many many episodes (I remember seeing them when I was a kid and I saw a recent episode still featuring them). However to the best of my knowledge there really isn't much else to say about them beyond this one line. 23skidoo 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Sesame Street and redirect to nose. --Scimitar parley 16:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete minor characters. ESkog 16:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Very minor character. --Carnildo 21:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge Brownman40 07:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sesame Street characters are notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 16 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Honker
There's a completely another meaning for Honker. The page was rewritten and if it needs a redirection, please feel free to add a tag. --Yau 12:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Main character in non-notable webcomic. DS 23:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Dragon EdwinHJ | Talk 23:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless notability is established. Punkmorten 10:32, 7 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Minor character in non-notable webcomic. Although the description "we can rebuild him! Make him faster, stronger, smarter -" "Actually, our budget's been cut. We can make him faster and stronger, but that's it" is funny, I'll admit. DS 23:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Kudos for The Six Million Dollar Man reference, though. --Scimitar parley 16:08, 6 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
see Meca-Zonic. DS 23:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Scimitar parley 16:12, 6 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
see Matt McCormic, Meca-Zonic et al. DS 23:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn. Grue 19:38, 7 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:17, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
A spinoff article of Burnt Face Man (see vfd). —Cryptic (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn spinoff of a nn thing. -Splash 01:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Punkmorten 12:21, 5 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was MERGE to Bobby Hill (King of the Hill). -Splash 23:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft, complete with more trivial trivia. Several Times 20:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Bobby Hill (King of the Hill) which already exists. Deleting the content of either of those two articles would set a dangerous precedent because we have tons of articles on major characters of TV shows. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just coming to post the same vote as Zzyzx11. Merge and redirect. John Barleycorn 21:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per Zzyzx11 -Soltak 21:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Bobby Hill (Short, sort of fat, cartoon character on the TV show King of the Hill who is the son of Hank Hill). Or, better yet, speedy redirect! Is there such a thing? There should be. -R. fiend 22:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is such a thing, Mighty Mouse (Cartoon) met that fate yesterday. I've even seen a speedy merge. CanadianCaesar 23:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, it's ridiculous how people manage to come up with Bobby Hill (Cartoon character in King of the Hill), but somehow miss Bobby Hill. I'm just waiting for someone to come up with a separate article Dave Matthews Band (band). -R. fiend 00:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is such a thing, Mighty Mouse (Cartoon) met that fate yesterday. I've even seen a speedy merge. CanadianCaesar 23:05, 4 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus), although it should be merged with Mytharria when an article about this game is created. For those interested in vote count we have one conditional vote, which is counted as a delete here, leaving us with 4 deletes and 3 keep and/or merge votes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Character in a game that is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. JamesTeterenko 05:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added Mytharria to requested articles. If that is a redlink, Delete. If that is a bluelink, Merge. Sirmob 06:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge, wikipedia is not paper, random page users should not be its priority. Kappa 11:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:04, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable character in a non-notable game -Soltak 16:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete individual game cahracters are not usually notable, and i see no indication that this is an exception. DES (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Kappa. Notability is not a relevant for criterion for this kind of subject. arj 21:51, 7 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 19:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does a list of fictional physicians have any relevance to anything? No. Delete now. It does not belong on wikipedia. --Differentgravy 12:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It gets 165 google hits. 'nuf said 212.101.64.4 16:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? "Pink Fluffy Bunnies" gets over 3700 hits on Google, and I made that phrase up just now. Delete, the list verges on pointlessness. Xaa 18:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - relevance. A good score of people have added to this, but the only link:to on Google appears to be someone else's copy of the same list.
- Sorry, new. Eldereft 17:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems odd to be accept the relevance of a list of fictional military people, a list of fictional postal employees, a list of fictional alcoholics, a list of fictional computers, and even a list of fictional characters with one eye but say that a list of fictional physicians is irrelevant. Jason 18:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're right - if someone nominates a list of fictional characters with one eye, I'll probably vote it off the island, too. ;-) Xaa 18:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- One-eyed characters are very important in fiction, and have been so since the times of ancient Greece. CanadianCaesar 21:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're right - if someone nominates a list of fictional characters with one eye, I'll probably vote it off the island, too. ;-) Xaa 18:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Jason. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep The deletion of this article shouldn't even be up for discussion. D. J. Bracey (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy keep; this nomination doesn't appear to contend that the article satisfies Wikipedia's deletion policy. Brighterorange 19:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep keepy keep. Splendid wiki list article Robinh 19:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Its purpose is clearly defined in the title. It's interesting, if a little long and cluttered up with General Hospital characters. Just needs a bit of a tidy-up. Flowerparty talk 20:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fitting WP:DEL criterion of "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic". The Literate Engineer 20:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree it can be cut down a little and defined a little better, but it works and can be of some use. Notable characters included. CanadianCaesar 21:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep some lists about fictional ... (fill in) may be irrelevant, but this one isn't and neither are the others mentioned in this VFD. - Mgm|(talk) 23:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep take an aspirin and lie down. JamesBurns 05:33, 7 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Unencyclopedic and childish, also uncapitalized.--Zxcvbnm 20:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Hardy Boys. NatusRoma 05:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn cruft. JamesBurns 05:43, 7 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely non-notable. This "thing" is the extent of what I can find on this topic. Otherwise, I can't find any evidence of a manga called "Ninja vs. Samurai" on Google, though I do find a lot of forum posts about it. It's possible I've just never heard of it, but my fiancee, an avid manga reader, hasn't heard of it either... so here it is, nominated for deletion. I thank the Wikify project for pointing me in the direction of this page.
- Unsigned nomination by User:FreelanceWizard CanadianCaesar 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
non notableCanadianCaesar 23:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Hmmm... on second thought I don't want to rely so much on Google. I'll just say, notability not established. CanadianCaesar 00:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I concur. --Howcheng 19:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - DavidWBrooks 14:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - whoever created it should have created (and sourced) a article on the manga first. JesseW 03:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this isn't an encyclopedia entry by any stretch of the imagination. Onesong 20:14, 9 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.