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 merge in parent article and then delete. The main characters article could probably easily fit in the important characters from this list if it was cleaned up. As it is, no sources to prove notability, which means whether or not to keep hinges on whether it is governed by WP:SIZE concerns. As stated above, this could still be merged into the main list, and though still "only a guideline" I think most people would assume the bedrock to inclusion on Wikipedia is more important than the 32KB limit which does not apply to most modern browsers. David Fuchs (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters in Camp Lazlo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of minor characters in Camp Lazlo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a list of single-episode characters, those one-shot types of characters who only serve to advance the plot elements for an individual episode. It's chock full of trivial, unverifiable material and original research, with no possibility of any third-party (or even second-party) sources. They're not only non-notable out-of-universe, they're non-notable in-universe. Yngvarr 23:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment The name of the article is a bit misleading. The term "minor" implies a greater level of appearances than what actually occurs. When I consider a "minor" character, someone like Apu from the Simpsons comes to mind. Some of the characters listed in this article never even appear (Edward's mother, Lumpus' grandfather), they're merely mentioned once or twice. As much as the trivia has been addressed, they still continue to reappear (which I realize is not terms for deletion in itself, but in this regard, I'll argue otherwise). Yngvarr 16:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia makes no such distinction, and I don't agree that "minor" has the threshold of significance you suggest. "Minor" characters can occur only a few times, or even just once. In any case, what you're arguing is article content, which isn't a good basis for an AfD. Torc2 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm arguing for deletion based on notability and reliable sources (or lack of). They have no note both in an in-universe context and out-of-universe context. The burden of proof gives further details: so far, there have been no arguments for keeping that have proven that these subjects have been covered by WP policies (WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS). If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Yngvarr 10:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure there has. This article only exists apart from the main Camp Lazlo article due to WP:SIZE restrictions. It's entirely appropriate for this subarticle to be primary sources since it's merely content for the main article. The content is covered by WP:NNC more than WP:N. Torc2 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NNC over-rides WP:N? WP:NNC still says [the] topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article (emp. mine). I'm not arguing for the size of the article, I'm arguing that references and sources for these characters do not exist. What about WP:SYNTH, for which this article also suffers (as a form of WP:OR)? The content is based solely on primary sources; and criticism of the subject is impossible without those sources. WP:SIZE is style guidelines, not policy; WP:N is policy. Finally, if one were to actually address the issues with List of characters in Camp Lazlo, then WP:SIZE may not be an issue (see the long-outstanding tags). Yngvarr 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N doesn't address the issues created by WP:SIZE and the fact that a single article that is split due to size isn't the same thing as two distinct articles. (FWIW, WP:N is also a guideline, not a policy.) WP:SIZE and WP:N conflict in this regard, and the guidelines and terminology just haven't caught up to reality yet. It's a shortcoming that some editors are working to address . In the meantime, the reality of the situation is that it's ridiculous and crippling to pretend articles like this were ever intended to be totally independent from their main articles. These aren't "separate articles" - they're sub-articles; they're part of the main article that just exist on a different page. List of characters in Camp Lazlo, List of minor characters in Camp Lazlo, and List of Camp Lazlo episodes are all part of one article: Camp Lazlo - the fact that they are on different Wiki pages is just incidental. They're simply data that won't fit in the main article; that they're primary-source summaries is basically irrelevant. If there is superfluous information, it should be dealt with using guidelines that apply to article content, not article creation.Torc2 (talk) 20:33, 7 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.
More