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--JForget 00:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of secondary characters from Futurama[edit]

List of secondary characters from Futurama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

By the article's definition, everything in the list has "little importance to the series as a whole." If they don't have notability in the fictional universe, there's no way they have real world importance. 17Drew 08:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nominator says it all. /Blaxthos 12:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for WP:N, as much as I like the show. Some of the names aren't even characters in the fictional universe, let alone notable ones: "I.C. Wiener – Fake name... not real person". — BillC ^talk 14:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if the character has any actual importnace it undoubtedly is already mentioned in the appropriate episode article. Otto4711 14:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hopelessly sub-trivial, with entries like "Cymbal-Banging Monkey – One of the robots on the tropical island" and "Kitty – The snobby guest at the Treasures of the Silk Surplus reception mentions her name". All the notable characters have their own articles, and even the semi-notable ones are covered in the three (yes, *three*!) recurring character articles. We don't need this too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless, not a problem because we aren't a paper encyclopedia, but if a Futurama wiki exists and this is already there and linked to from the main article, than that's fine, too. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:HARMLESS. 17Drew 18:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Harmless "is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline." --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • An essay that you have used to support your arguments in other discussions. Jay32183 18:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Bad news, nobody! Lugnuts 17:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't go with the "not a paper encylopedia" argument on this one. I disagree that there should be an article about every episode of every TV series, nor that describing all secondary characters of Futurama or South Park in one article is an acceptable compromise to avoid individual articles about the characters. While I always liked Futurama, I kind of liked Green Acres too. Substituting this for "X", should we have a similar article about everyone of the guest characters during the run of Green Acres? Maybe on imdb.com, but not here. Mandsford 17:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not a list of secondary characters but of incidental characters. If it were a list of secondary characters, the list would be defensible. --Farix (Talk) 21:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:NOT#DIR. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete List cruft meanings 3, 4 and 6 OZOO (What?) 20:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This isn't just of things that aren't notable in the real world, but they don't have collective notability either. The list does not, and cannot, have a clear definition either. Jay32183 02:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator. Secondary. Or in other words, trivial. See also: non encyclopedic. Burntsauce 17:19, 18 September 2007 (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.