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 Keep CBD 22:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Courage the Cowardly Dog characters[edit]

List of Courage the Cowardly Dog characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly, this article does not meet the notability. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 17:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 19:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under what criteria do you argue that this isn't notable enough for its own page? There are plenty of pages that are a list of a summary of the characters of a multi-season show, even if the show itself is no longer in production (see here, here, here, here etc.). What consensus are you using to show that this series is not notable enough to have a list of its characters, and are you proposing that all "List of x characters" pages be deleted? You need to demonstrate that this page is different from and less notable than the countless other List of Character pages that exist, otherwise, I don't really see how this is "clearly" not notable. Bstbll (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment JJ98, your edits don't make a lot of sense to me. It looks like you had previously merged the character list to Courage the Cowardly Dog, then split it out again in order to create this AFD. Couldn't you have removed any content you thought didn't belong in the main article without splitting it back out and starting an AFD? Also, it seems like you've nominated this for deletion twice before and both times withdrew the nomination before anyone commented. Are you sure this time that you think it should be deleted? Since it seems like you can't decide on what to do with this character list, maybe you should discuss it more on the article talk page to get some more input into how it should be handled. Calathan (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I notice that, it has been merged into Courage the Cowardly Dog two times before it was spilt. There are tons of non-notable characters from the animated television series and films, for example, I've nominated Brock Samson, Doctor Thaddeus Venture, Hank Venture and rest of The Venture Bros. characters for deletion due lack of sources and notability. See WP:GNG and WP:WAF for more information. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems fine to me, agree with Bstball Alphaswitch91 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination is merely an incomplete assertion. The article is a pragmatic spin-off from another article where its independent coverage is manifest. patsw (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For every notable television show X, we allow a list of otherwise not individually notable characters, which generally goes by the name of "List of X characters". Per WP:NNC, the individual entries need not be notable, and the notability of a "List of X characters" derives from the topic X. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Without this page, the main article would be too long. It makes sense that the bulk of character biographical information is moved here. If the main article is notable (and i don't believe that is being questioned), then this article is notable as an extension to the main article. I grew up with Courage the Cowardly Dog and found this page to be very helpful. Webspidrman (talk) 24:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is pretty much standard for WP. Fancruft but that's what fans seem to want. Doesn't do the rest of us any harm. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article only provides primary sources to back up the content, but no secondary sources to presume that the list of characters meets general notability guideline which means that it fails the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists and notability is not inherited to every content fork. The list itself is merely a plot-only description of a fictional work, so it falls into what Wikipedia is not, making the list inappropriate for the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. This article is an arbitrary content fork and an unnecessary split of Courage the Cowardly Dog, which has an article size of 21.5 KB, way below the recommended article size to justify a split of plot-only content. I do not think that a merge would be appropriate given that most material is taken with original research and the article gives undue weight to minor characters and antagonists. Jfgslo (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous comment stipulates that primary sources exist which is mutually inconsistent with the subsequent opinion that delete is more appropriate than merge.  The multiple arguments that the material should not have been split stand against the argument that the material should not be merged.  Which is it?  By definition, a list is not a plot-only description.  Both WP:OR and WP:UNDUE are content policies, not notability guidelines.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list has no justification to exist as a stand-alone article other than being a split, so I assumed that the content was split. But that does not mean that the material is appropriate to merge since the majority the content of the article has original research, for example the sentence "Though capable of speaking fluent English, Courage mostly does so to the viewers and other non-human characters, largely tending to speak in unintelligible gibberish to most human characters", which is not published in any reliable publication and it is not justified to include in a merge. The very little content that is referenced is done so with primary sources, so that means that any editor can take that content from them again and that avoids future problems with the GFDL that a merge would invariably cause. So, with lots of OR and nothing outside of primary sources, a merge is not justified in anyway. A list of fictional characters with no real world context, reception or significance is a list of plot-only and it's not appropriate for the criteria of WP:SALAT. And WP:OR is one of the reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an awful lot of acronyms you've linked to, but unfortunately you haven't interpreted them correctly. We only delete an article for OR if its very conception is OR; we do not delete verifiable topics that happen to contain OR statements. "Notability is not inherited" isn't relevant to subtopics of notable topics, but rather to notable topics that may be associated with separate nonnotable topics (such as the mother of a political office holder, an employee of a company, etc.). And your dismissive justification of deleting the content that isn't OR, but derives from primary sources ("that means that any editor can take that content from them again") is frankly contrary to everything Wikipedia is about, given that it would be true of information from any available source, whether primary or secondary. postdlf (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you may think, the article still does not have references to suggests that it meets the WP:GNG. Lists are subject to notability per WP:LISTN or they must be appropriate per the WP:SALAT and I have already pointed out why the article doesn't meet either of them. This still is an unjustified split per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and the majority of the content is WP:OR (or WP:SYNTH if you prefer) as anyone can see by reading the list and checking that most of the content is either unreferenced or is taken by interpreting primary sources. The policies and guidelines are quite clear and there is not a valid reason to keep this article. Jfgslo (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the impression that reliance upon primary sources, in and of itself, constitutes OR, which isn't correct.

Further, given that you concede that the list is not entirely OR ("the majority of the content is WP:OR"), and because the main article has no character descriptions at all but instead just links to this list, this is at most a merger candidate. Which means that the scalpel of normal editing must determine what to trim from this list and whether it can fit into the parent article, as opposed to the wrecking ball of AFD. Can you at least agree that normal editing and discussion should have been attempted first, before taking this to AFD?

Lastly, to whatever extent the Manual of Style section WP:SALAT or the notability guideline WP:LISTN would "prohibit" this list (I don't see where the former is clear at all on this point, and the latter is incomplete at best in its descriptions of practice), it is contrary to the consensus repeatedly demonstrated at AFD, for both split-off TV series character lists and episode lists. postdlf (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Patsw. Difluoroethene (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  A delete position has already stipulated that primary sources exist for this subarticle, the rest of this discussion is better decided by the involved editors on the talk page of the article.  Given that this is only one of two subarticles on the main article, I see no reason to doubt the decision to split.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete: only sourced to primary sources, with a few sources to verify cast members. Falls extremely short of the general notability guideline, which calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent". Coverage is not significant or independent. Despite the keep comments here saying that rules don't apply to spinoffs, guidelines state that spinoffs should meet notability guidelines. See WP:AVOIDSPLIT 74.198.9.152 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above; standard split-off from series article. A series' characters are obviously an integral part of that series, so they have to be described to some extent, even if only from primary sources. And whether such a character list is substantial enough to merit splitting off into a standalone list is an editorial decision. postdlf (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2011 (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.