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 delete. There is a clear consensus to delete. If any editor wants this material to attempt a merge to the main article, just let me know. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-time characters in Johnny Test[edit]

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

This is a contested PROD. My PROD reason was "Almost by definition, one time appearing characters in almost any fiction or entertainment series are not going to be notable except in special circumstances making them particularly notable. Unless there are reliable sources for this list it should be deleted." To which the author posted a contesting comment on the talk page "THINK before deleting: Johnny Test has too many characters. Do you really want to delete before people haven't even SEEN the show can read it?". The article is unreferenced so I still think that we have notability, verifiability problems as well as a it being fancruft. This list is the sort of thing we might accept as an external link if it was published elsewhere, but it is not encyclopaedic information that should have an article here. DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely agree with nom's rationale. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A list of characters that have only one appearance. Joe Chill (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual characters will not be individually notable, so this is the reasonable compromise way of handing them., We should have at least a redirect tfor every named character in every notable show, so people can find out something--that's a proper purpose for an encyclopedia. We should have no V problems--just give the episode numbers--this sort of material is sourceable to the primary source. I agree with Joe that it is "a list of characters that have only one appearance" but I do not see why he assumes tbat is a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would this not be the best place for it? --Paularblaster (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DGG's keep is laughable. Where do you propose finding sources? Lumping non-notable stuff into a list doesn't make it keepable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for WP:V, which I agree is important, the work itself is an acceptable source for fictional elements. as a personal comment, I seem to be being told there is no point in proposing compromise solutions. And it seems to me so very obvious that the way to deal with characters not deserving a full article is to give them a small part of a larger one, and for those not deserving even that, to include on a list. We could , I suppose, always merge this content into the main article. Lines of text in an article don't have to be notable sentence by sentence, just relevant. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree, no sources, no notability. We don't need to keep articles just to keep articles. Shadowjams (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do not throw articles away simply because they currently lack sourcing, as AfD is most specifically not for cleanup... nor should any call another's opinion laughable. With the fictional work itself acceptable for WP:V, a WP:SPINOUT based upon the notability of the parent is always acceptable per guideline. However, the parent is not a tremendously huge article, so I would not be adverse to a merge of this list to Johnny Test where its notable is made clear and the list has context. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidebar: I have a high-speed connection and personally do not have a major problem if any article's pages becomes waaaaaaaay too huge... and anyone with dialup or slow connections will have already learned patience from slow page loadings when visiting commercial sites, so overly long articles should never be of concern. Pack it in. With SPINOUT and LIST being more hated on a weekly basis, I predict that two will be either dismantled or declared historical within the next 12 months, and it will be accepted that articles can be as long as they need be, and the terms overburden and cumbersome removed from any consideration. For instance, absolutely everything in this encyclopedia about the commercial enterprises surrounding the Star Wars franchise, should be brought together into one massive article so that readers can find it all in one place instead of having to look at dozens of articles strewn all over the project in order to learn of the franchise's various minutae. Such proactive merges might be met unpopularly at first, but it makes finding the minutae that much easier. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I disagree about one point:LONG -- we are especially concerned with people with poor connections, because this is still the case for much of the audience for whom we are a key source of information--&sometimes the only reliable comprehensive source. . But this is not a real problem, for essentially and article or list can be divided. What I think will finally solve the LONG problem is a more sophisticated user interface which will be capable of dividing articles into segments as needed by the individual user--or a way of writing articles in modular parts that can, at the option of the user, be displayed as either small articles, or larger unified ones--so we'd have paragraphs about characters, that could be shown either as individual articles or included in a big one. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has there ever been discussion about using collapsable sections in mainspace articles, such as I have seen in discussions elsewhere? This would then allow article sections to be as chapters in a book, but collapsed and expandable, rather than as seperate and often decried article pages being forced to seperately source notability... allowing the entire article to contain all information relevent to the subject. Since WP:STAND and WP:LIST and WP:SPINOUT seem to always result in dissention, why not remove the cause for dissention? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Wikipedia is not paper, there no limits. If you aren't interested in this, there is no way you'd accidentally find your way to the page. List of one-time characters in The Simpsons was nominated for deletion six times [1] and it was kept. You gain nothing by deleting it, so leave it be. Dream Focus 15:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Simpsons was kept, doesn't mean this must be. This isn't a matter of all or nothing. This is a seperate article NOT related to the Simpsons. Your reasoning for keeping appears to be just "I like it". You have shown no actual reasons for keeping it. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the and Johnny Test page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Merge with Johnny Test, there already is a long list of characters and reoccuring characters on that page. Ikip (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Trivial list clutter at best. If any of it is actually somewhat notable, then merge into Johnny Test. Brief characters of a television show rarely show notability. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The contents of the list are trivial and the list itself is trivial as it hasn't been discussed in reliable, third-party sources. We can't make up lists like this unless they have already been compiled, that is original research. Them From Space 19:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. There are no sources for the characters on the page, but Smash Badger could probably be merged into the article if some sources could be found for him. He has appeared in the show more than once, but the rest are non notable and can be deleted. Mokoniki | talk 21:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While one time characters can be notable enough for their own articles, such as Irene Adler or Professor Moriarty, these characters are clearly not notable enough for that. A list such as this is a legitimate spinoff article to keep the main article from growing to large. Edward321 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no sources = no article. Direct quote from the policy WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Stifle (talk) 10:37, 4 October 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.