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. The general consensus on Wikipedia and within this debate is that lists of characters from notable works, when well written and sourced, can exist as a sub-article of the main article per WP:FICT. The caveat tends to be that the community wants them well written and sourced, otherwsie they shouldn't generally be split out from the parent article. However, as most of the respondents below have indicated, good faith can be extended to see an article improved in line with editing and verifiability policy. This nomination has been closed as keep with no prejudice against a new afd after a reasonable amount of time has been extended for good faith efforts to improve the article. A month has been suggested below, but being contrary I'll suggest 40 days. Hiding T 20:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Fairly OddParents characters[edit]

List of The Fairly OddParents characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

There has been a long drawn out edit war (one month) between users who believe this article fails WP:FICT/WP:WEIGHT and should thus be redirected to The Fairly OddParents#Characters, while others do not agree. There has been no discussion (and also no improvement) from both sides other than through edit summaries, and attempts to change this were basically ignored from both sides as well.[1] [2] [3]. Note that the article's bluelinks are circular redirects from former character articles that have not been removed yet (I mean the links, the character articles are still redirected). This nomination is procedural, although I believe the article currently looks more like indiscriminate plot information (i.e. every trivial character that ever existed) and fails WP:FICT (I have no idea whether the characters can establish notability as a list.) This is an all-or-nothing-case (i.e. a complete merge doesn't make much sense), and since there is no redirection board, I chose AfD to confirm consensus one way or another. I can/will withdraw if this is not the right forum. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and relist in one month unless consensus between users found on talk page to keep. AFD should not be used straight away before proper talk page discussion. Relist after a talk page discussion. (edit conficted nom) -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What Whiteandnerdy111 Said. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, withdraw. Thread is started at talkpage. Let's hope the edit wars stay away for a month. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The talk page doesn't control the article in every case. Seeing as no one seemed to even care much (as stated in the AFD nomination of this), I think this AFD is justified. Why wait for who knows how long, for a so called "consensus" to happen? Let's not crystal ball here. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll wait with the withdraw for another 24 or 48 hours. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is still very unstable, and still doesn't establish notability that would make it stable, I'll let this AfD run its course to get a stable result (for a month or for always). – sgeureka ^t•c 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• While AFD isn't the place for this, I'll say Delete, the article has no evidence of meeting WP:FICTION, and I can't see a reasoning on adding all these minor characters of this show to the main page, if it doesn't meet current policy Secret ^account 23:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - South Park has a "List of students at South Park Elementary" article, and it contains minors as well as majors. The article discussed here should be resculpted into the same format. Instead of bulletins, each character should have a section for themselves, and each one should have a bio summary. If they are notable enough to be included in a private article, then a link saying "Main Article: (The characters' name)" just below the character's name in the list. Deleting the article when this sort of potential exists is a deconstructive, useless waste of time, and I'd say anyone who happens to be dumb enough to do so should be blocked from editing Wikipedia, as they obviously cannot be trusted. User:Wilhelmina Will has spoken. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Tell you what; I'll make some of the edits I've proposed, so you can become wise to what I mean. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:NPA and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Secret ^account 01:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• They're not all individual articles, which usually mollifies me. It's a List of Characters article. I personally support keeping this, because a good description of the major characters could bloat the original article. That said, I do think we should remove many of the entries on this list, and keep only major and the more important minor characters. I also agree that if there is a discussion in place, AfD should not be used to bring a quick end to it, so I'd be fine with suspending the nomination until there the discussion is over and no consensus can be reached. I (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is just part of the main The Fairly OddParents article parsed out due to WP:SIZE restrictions. It is not a separate article; it just exists on a separate page. It should not be assessed for notability in complete isolation from The Fairly OddParents, but should be viewed as part of that article. Torc2 (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This should just be withdrawn because the majority of people are used to the every series having an article for characters. That'll sort of have a certain push on this AfD. People need to remember that this is a simple cartoon that relies on very, very simple characters and a very, very basic set up that rarely changes between the episodes. Two to four paragraphs to describe the major character and the general plot in the main article is good enough. On top of that, you also have an episode list to back that. TTN (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was just said by this user should not be taken seriously. He has undergone severe trauma in his life on Wikipedia, and is still lots of delirious since then. He has no idea what he is saying. Poor thing. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so tempted to block you for violating WP:NPA Secret ^account 03:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm tempted to find out who you are, track you down and kiss you. I 10V3 my B18CK R053. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the policy has been to get multiple character pages merged into one page. We cannot then delete the list page, that would be in bad faith, and would be counterproductive for the next TV show that needs merging. AnteaterZot (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, there was never any merge. The characters were just redirected. The information added recently does not constitute encyclopedic information, so it has been removed. TTN (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I realized after I posted that this AfD has a weird history, but I think every major TV show should have the same basic structure, a main page, a list of episodes page, a list of characters page. If the pages get too large, then a list of minor characters page. If individual characters are independently notable, they can have a break-out page. If we can get the fans to merge all the non-notable characters to a list page, we're making real progress. So we should basically never delete a list of characters page, since it will make the fans not trust that the page will survive forever. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Keep: This is a character list. It's nothing out of the ordinary. However, it should be trimmed down so that it only includes the bare essentials. One-offs (like Silvester Calzone), characters introduced solely for gags (like Carl, Cindy, and Jimmy), characters without names (like the Sewer Gator), and characters who do not appear or are not even mentioned in the series at all (like Chip Skylark II) don't need to clutter up this article. Strip it down to Timmy, his prominent peers, family, and Godparents, Vicky, Crocker, Jorgen, and the Crimson Chin. Perhaps have a small section for a bullet list of minor recurring characters such as the Mayor, Binky, and Doug Dimmadome. You Can't See Me! 03:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but requires major rewrite. List of non-notable characters are acceptable but need to be written as if a section of the main article (see summary style). Main characters get a line while villians get a small paragraph? There's an imbalance here. Consider moving some material to a wiki if content should be kept, but this article needs a major trim and rebalance to be kept. --MASEM 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Catchpole (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Masem, but also agree it could use some work. I find it disturbing that compromise and guidance leads us to go from individual character articles to list of character articles, and then some want to delete those, as well. Ursasapien (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep as a character list is certainly appropriate for a show, however this list is in serious need of an over haul to make it balanced and bring in line with the current character list standards: stick to the notable, significant characters, hack out the minor characters, write proper descriptions and summaries for each. If no one is willing to do the work, redirect back to the main until someone is. Maybe see if someone from the TV project is willing to take on the work. Collectonian (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.—Collectonian (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it a lean simple article. But keep. ThuranX (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2008 (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.