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 Redirect all. No one arguing for keeping these articles as they are has indicated how they meet or even come close to WP:N. The majority is unsourced,n the rest is only sourced to primary sources. If there is anything left to merge, feel free to do so. Please don't undo the redirects unless significant coverage from reliable independent sources for the character is added. Fram (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lila Sawyer[edit]

Lila Sawyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This nomination includes and only includes the following pages:

• Lila Sawyer
• Harold Berman
• Rhonda Wellington Lloyd
• Curly (Hey Arnold)
• Sid (Hey Arnold!)
• Eugene Horowitz
• Oskar Kokoshka
• Mr. Hyunh
• Miles (Hey Arnold!)
• Stella (Hey Arnold!)
• Gertie (Hey Arnold!)
• Phoebe Heyerdahl

These supporting characters do not satisfy the notability guideline for fiction per WP:WAF and unlikely to do so at any point in time. They are already on List of Hey Arnold! characters. I suggest redirecting to that page rather than outright deletion.

It should also be noted that a deletion discussion took place on Hey Arnold! character Stinky Peterson (here) and resulted in a consensus for "delete." (The page Stinky Peterson is currently a disamb. page with a link to the show). Frank Anchor^Talk 18:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all No sources will likely exist for any of these characters. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reference better. There appears to be enough content for a stand alone article on some, and the smaller ones can be merged into one article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but it's all unsourced original research. What the heck would we source it to? It's not like there're scads of sources for a three-season Nickelodeon cartoon. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• And the few references that are found in the pages right now are "in-universe" - either references to the show itself or specific episodes. reliable secondary sources do not and will not exist for these characters. Frank Anchor^Talk 20:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Hey Arnold! characters (at least the non-disambiguated ones) as reasonable search terms. Probably no point to redirecting the ones with the "Hey Arnold" qualifier, but if someone has a compelling reason I don't really care. Not sure why you needed AfD for this though... BryanG (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Because some rabid fanboy might undo the redirects if they get redirected? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some can get deleted... others not so much being feasible search terms and don't make me turn a hose on you regarding the rabid fanboy stuff. Only I may be derisive to them. treelo _radda 23:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I boldly redirected them, but another user undid my edit, so I decided to have a discussion on the matter here. Frank Anchor^Talk 01:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, fair enough, I just don't like it when people come to AfD arguing for something other than deletion. BryanG (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and transfer any useful, encyclopedic content. None of the characters cut it as a lone article (the sole possible exception being Arnold himself, and even that is dodgy), but an improvement of the character list article wouldn't be the worst thing known to mankind.Tyrenon (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not even the nominator is suggesting deletion, just redirection. probably Redirect or merge after a talk page discussion This should not have been brought here in the first place DGG (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protected redirect as above. No notability here, no out-of-universe content. Eusebeus (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see what the problem is with the current description. Honestly, this show has been off the air for years--where is anyone supposed to get outside sources or anything? I am all for keeping the articles the way they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legrammarnazi (talk • contribs) 04:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep All The nominator wants to keep this material and suggests redirection. If that is sensible then it does not require deletion of anything. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I do support deletion. I even deleted that redirect stuff i put on the page before you added this text. Frank Anchor^Talk 02:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep most of them, redirect some of them All these articles can't be treated the same way, and yet they should be treated as a system. The show obviously is notable, and the information related to its characters obviously can't be kept within one article and has to be split. Therefore we should not estimate the articles' independent notability (most of them are not notable, but they cover a notable subject, and splitting the subject into several articles simply makes them more handy). We should estimate the characters notability within the show. I suggest the next criterion: a character is notable, when s/he has at least two episodes centered on him/her, and has significant participation in several other episodes. The next characters I consider notable within the show: Lila ("Ms Perfect", "Arnold and Lila"), Harold ("Weighing Harold", "Harold's Kitty"), Rhonda ("Polishing Rhonda", "Rhonda's Glasses"), Curly ("Curly Snaps", "Curly's Girl"), Sid ("Sid the Vampire Slayer", "Sid and Germs"), Eugene ("Eugene's Birthday", "Eugene's Pet"), Oskar ("Oskar Can't Read?", "Oskar Gets a Job"), Mr. Hyunh ("Mr. Hyunh Goes Country", "Family Man"), "Phoebe" ("Phoebe Skips", "Phoebe Breaks a Leg") — they are regular main characters and deserve to have articles of their own. The same goes for Stinky Peterson ("Stinky's Pumpkin", "Stinky Goes Hollywood"). On the other hand Miles, Stella, and Gertie seem to be important characters, but never having a spotlight on them. The information about them may be included into the articles about other characters without making the system of articles less intuitive. Hellerick (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, Eminem just said it's his favorite show[1][2]. Just interesting fact. Hellerick (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is but holds no bearing on this AfD. Your reasoning doesn't take into account out of universe notability which none of these characters have, might be good for a Hey Arnold wikia but not much for here. Anyway, I figure a bold redirect then protection of all the articles as done before this nom came abouct would be best. treelo _radda 11:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My position is that you should not apply notability rules designed for one article to a system of articles. The current organization if Hey Arnold related articles is more sensible than remaking them into a bunch clumsy but notable bricks. Hellerick (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand your argument there, talk of systems and bricks confuses me. The organisation isn't the issue, it's whether or not these primary/secondary characters are notable in their own right without using in-universe criteria or inherited notability from the series itself. Had a look at a sample of the articles and most I feel can be trimmed and merged into a character list seeing as they're mostly unsourced fanfluff. treelo _radda 15:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean we can remake the articles into a new notable article like "Characters of Hey Arnold!", but for the sake of comfortable organization, the articles are better to remain split. It's better to have a system of unnotable articles, than counter-intuitive mess in several notable articles. Hellerick (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an article like that and that's a god-awful mess of minor characters as it stands but it can be rewritten for the ones which are notable in-universe. The problem with having non-notable articles regarding characters who aren't notable in their own right separate from the show is that they end up at AfD, there is a reason behind it. treelo _radda 17:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters is a list of characters, it is not supposed to contain any descriptions. And the characters deserve to be described. Hellerick (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most character lists do describe the characters, not a wall of names but nothing regarding them. The Hey Arnold list is a terrible example of what a list of characters should be and deserves to be halved given the sheer weight of useless information there. Supposition doesn't matter, what is generally accepted does and nobody is saying don't describe the characters, more a merge of the characters into a single list, judiciously clipped. If that can't be done then the wrong people are looking after the article. treelo _radda 09:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list of characters is a well organized and informative "dramatis personae" list. It serves its function and should not be mixed with anything else. Hellerick (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it's your baby (it isn't, see WP:OWN) and you want all 180(!) characters documented regardless of if they're noteworthy inside of outside of the Hey Arnold universe. Problem here is that Wikipedia is not the Hey Arnold wiki and everything cannot be documented here, not for lack of space but because of the content being notable and relevant to everyone, not just the fans. Having a predominantly useless list of one-shots, unseens and minor characters to protect non-notable characters from having their own articles is ludicrous and a poor argument as to why your own personal organisation of a set of articles (which fits no established consensus on how other character lists and articles are maintained) should be protected. Again, this is not the Hey Arnold wiki, there is a threshold of notability for characters in a TV series amongst several TV series and these are way below it. treelo _radda 11:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First try to delete the articles List of characters in The Simpsons, and List of one-time characters in The Simpsons, then you may compaint about Hey Arnold!, which is rather moderate. Hellerick (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all: No out of universe context. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Copy all to the Nickelodeon Wikia then do what's appropriate here. knoodelhed (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - these are informative articles about notable characters form a notable TV show. Varbas (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Varbas. Informative articles about notable characters from a notable TV show. If you don't like character articles, don't read them. You wouldn't be likely to find them anyway, unless you went looking for them. And I don't care what the guidelines say, they just suggestions anyway, not policy. Dream Focus 01:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure these articles might be "informative" but almost none of the information in the articles is notable or verifiable, as the articles are poorly sourced (if sourced at all) thus making it un-encyclopedic. The little useful content in the characters' articles could easily be added to the character list and some of the "informative" content you say is in the articles would stay. Frank Anchor^Talk 02:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is why you add a reference tag, not delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I do that? There aren't references out there. It would just be a waste of time Frank Anchor^Talk 14:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, merge and/or redirect Not a single article in the batch has a single reference. WP:FICT first inclusion clause gives the qualifier Significant real-world coverage, and no original research, which not a single article presented provides. The articles are full of wonderfully fluffy words like possible and perhaps, which is not a mere indication of WP:OR, but is original research without any evidence to back those statements up. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Listify. No sources presently hardly means that no sources exist. Nickelodeon has these in rerun and a movie based on the series exists and my understanding is that the original series is being put out on DVD. These all suggest that deleting wouldn't help here - nor would a strict merge as there exists a character list already. It may make sense, presuming these are the lead characters, to listify these into a main charcter sublist of the character list. This will allow those interested in the basic details to get more than a single sentence currently on offer at the main list but also condense all these into just one or a couple list articles as appropriate encouraging the entire series to be developed rather than just one or two breakout character articles. -- Banjeboi 10:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  These are not lead characters. They're rather secondary, minor characters, which is why such sourcing lacks. Popularity != notability, having DVD releases still does not provide suitable sourcing for the characters. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  To be more clear, I have little doubt that the original sources can be used to cover most of what's here. What is more helpful is non-primary sources so movie reviews, DVD commentaries, DVD revues, Nickelodeon commentary etc are all possibilities. In any case, these aren't AfD as in deletion issues as much as merge to proper list article(s). Someone more familiar with the series would likely do a far better job than I at that. -- Banjeboi 11:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all of these original essays, existing of entirely in-universe plot summary, and unsupported by any reliable sources independent of the fictional work and its creators that might serve to begin to establish some independent notability for these fictional entitites separate from the work of fiction which they inhabit. If someone wants to redirect to the series after deletion, i have no particularl objection.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We redirect instead of deletion actually. In that way any editor can see what the previous work contained and can access that history. The other benefit is that when newer users search for these characters they are redirected to an article with whatever information we do have. -- Banjeboi 22:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Just for fun, I have counted the articles about South Park: 271 (+ about 200 pictures). You chose Hey Arnold a victim of your attacks solely because it can't defend itself? Hellerick (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, it can't defend itself? Attacks? Personally, what I want for these articles are redirects with deletion for those which aren't likely search terms. Comparing a series like Hey Arnold to genuinely culturally important shows which have run several times longer isn't the best method by which to argue for your (when I say your, I mean it in the WP:OWN sense) articles not to be removed. treelo _radda 10:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course South Park is culturally important -- that's why it has 271 articles. But Hey Arnold deserves to have at least 27. Otherwise it turns out that the only de facto criterion for deletion is presence of fans among Wikipedia administrators (For some reason Wikipedia and Hey Arnold don't mix. I was talking to HA! fans, they can create sites in php, but they think Wiki is too complicated.) Hellerick (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop proving my points right and way short of the full truth! Whether or not someone is a fan is irrelevant, what is though is importance, notability and the relevance to the everyday reader. Yes, it's part cultural importance for South Park to have more articles but moreso, and this seems to be the sticking point in your understanding of things, they have sources and reliable ones too, wether or not it's deserved is of personal opinion. You can say why Stan or Milhouse are socially relevant but I want you to try and show me why Mr. Hyunh or Miles are socially relevant too. That you cannot back up why anything you say should be anything more than "but I like it is worrying, you clearly care more for the articles than Wikipedia itself and just so you're aware, I am a fan of Hey Arnold, doesn't exempt me from knowing where its place is. treelo _radda 16:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody tries to prove relevancy of South Park articles. They exist as a system, as an obviously relevant system which is organized in most effective way. You're trying to impose something like The Simpsons system of notable conglomerate articles — which seems to be in better accordance with Wikipedia rules, while I like more intuitive South Park System (one important entity — one article).

As for my motivation — I'm fighting the deletionists, the worst enemies of Wikipedia. I guess everyone here understands keeping these articles makes Wikipedia better. It's just some people are trying to help the readers and provide them information, while others enjoy destroying their work. Plus I feel necessary to represent all these anonymous IPs who have created this little miracle and now can't defend it.

The weird thing is that all these articles would be gladly welcome in any other Wikipedia but English one (well, and German maybe). Imagine: English Wikipedia is the worst suitable for description of American cartoons. Hellerick (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other wikipedias have even lower standards for dealing with fancruft and even less regard for trying to be, you know, actual encyclopedias about information notable in the real world? Wow.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can't say I care for your "system" logic, whatever the hell one is supposed to be. I'm guessing it means a wider array of garbage articles which must stay because, annoyingly enough, the devilspawn deletionists are out to crush everything. That you even brought in deletionist/inclusionist faction labels shows that you're way too polarised to see it any other way than "every sperm is sacred". Thing is that you know the rules/policies here and you know why these articles are up for deletion but heck, the wider system must be wrong because others are doing it this way which you prefer. If you note, no data will be lost as it'd most likely be a merge into a character list but nope, that list already contains a overly through list of one-time nobodies and we can't get rid of it... not everything is black and white and it is not a case of keep all info or delete all info. Keep what's relevant, ditch the crap. treelo _radda 18:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Either keep and improve all, or merge to a list of characters due to existence of out of universe information in the articles backed by reliable sources. Lists of characters is what our manual of style for writing about fiction suggests. Per WP:PRESERVE, we would at worst merge and redirect these if not continue to improve them further as redlinking is an extreme last resort. Given that these are characters from a familiar series, they can and should be covered in some capacity. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the list of characters, as there doesn't seem to be any properly-cited content in them. Anything that any user wants to preserve and is prepared to cite a source for can be merged, and in the unlikely event of enough cited material shows up, the articles can be broken back out per WP:SS. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as these articles fail WP:NOT#PLOT as well as all three of Wikipedia's core content polices. There are no reliable sources to verify their content which is filled with opinions about these fictional characters that is pure original research. These articles are basically content folks, as they provide no commentary, criticism, context or analysis that is not already contained in the article Hey Arnold!. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They pass WP:NOT#PLOT due to the out of universe information verifiable in reliable sources. No real reason for redlinking. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but your phrasing has me a little confused. You're claiming that they pass WP:NOT#PLOT? That is a policy for what should not be included, so are you saying they should be included or not? I don't think I've ever seen WP:NOT cited in such a reverse manner. And of the references, only Lila Sawyer provides a ref to a wikia site, which is really not WP:RS. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am in the process of referencing all of them now. Given that a recent RfC has over 60 editors oppose plot, the guideline clearly lacks consensus anyway, but information on who played the characters for example cannot be called "in universe." Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:38, 4 June 2009 (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.