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 and redirect, preserving the history for GFDL compliance. Mackensen (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waldo Faldo[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

very insignificant fictional characters, hardly enough real world information to give them their own articles, no where apparent to merge either Ejfetters (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have learned from reviewing Adrian Monk at WP:GAC that a fictional character can be largely sourced by the primary source. Thus, if the shows are available on DVD all that is needed is the actual episode name or number as a ref. If there is any reasonable real world info these articles can be sourced. The question is where the notability borderline falls. If the show were a current show, these characters would probably be kept. Since the show is a pre-internet show, it has limited resources. I am not sure it should be treated differently than current shows, however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- My only thing is I don't see enough Real World information. I know the information in the articles is probably correct, its just can't see enough real world information to give them their own articles. How about if they get merged somehow into a List of page? Thats the only thing I could think of, but then again, still would need real world info. Maybe enough real world info on the group of characters together is out there to piece them all together in one article. I am torn. I will try to look for real world info. on them though and see. Ejfetters (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because there is a long list of things the character said and did in the series, that doesn't make him notable. Might as well copy the whole script into the article! Deb (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. Minor non-notable fictional characters which haven't received substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources. Articles contain only plot summary in the form of character backgrounds, other in-universe details, and trivia. Without secondary sources, it is impossible for the article to have real-world information. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as these articles are completely unsourced, as well as failing WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. There is no information beyond what is revealed in the plot of the television series Family Matters, as none of these articles contains any real-world coverage these fictional characters. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and then consider whether to Merge or Redirect into a suitable article or list. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. these were long running characters in a major show. Tony's argument that they should be deleted because not current is a gross violation of a basic notability principle, that notability is permanent. indeed, one might even say that to keep the information for older shows is particularly important in an encyclopedia. We are not the encyclopedia of the internet world only. Given that provision of WP:N, and that he admits he would keep them if current, i expect he will withdraw the nomination. Deb isright, that the present articles need drastic trimming, but I do not see why the need for editing means the need for deletion. DGG (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't long running characters, they were insignificant recurring guest roles that were not a major part of the show. There is no real world information that can be found on them. The major characters have articles and are not AFD. Even those should be merged into one article, as was decided to be done in Home Improvement. Also, he didn't nominate them. I did. Ejfetters (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I don't know anything about these topics but had no difficulty finding sources which indicate that Waldo Faldo is an endearing character in a highly successful TV show and so has attracted significant notice. The nomination thus fails WP:BEFORE in that proper searches for sources have not been made and obvious alternatives to deletion, like merger with Family Matters, have not been properly considered. Deletion of numerous articles on such flimsy grounds is unacceptable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry Colonel, but please forgive for stating that you regularly make this kind of unsubstatiated claim. None of the sources you have found in your "research" identify the characters per se. Sure it is easy to find lots ghits about the series Family matters, or about specific episodes, or the actors that feature in them, but you have failed to find significant real-world coverage from a reliable secondary source about the fictional characters which are the subject matter of these articles. You need to be more specific, as vague unsubstatniated claims need to be backed up with firm evidence that the characters themselves are notable. Scattergun claims are the badge of a scatterbrain mind. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I provided a search link and the first hit was an article in the Washington Post entitled The Rise of Waldo Faldo which is specifically about this character. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article in question is an interview with the actor that plays the character. You really must learn, Colonel, to back up accusations with real facts, not pretend ones. Notability requires objective evidence - "pseudo-research" that you are so fond of just won't do. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is named for the character not the actor and contains material about the character such as Of late, Waldo, with his 1.0 grade-point average, has found his calling in cooking and enrolled in culinary school. Waldo first appeared as sidekick to the school bully (Larenz Tate) who terrorized Urkel. The material about the actor who plays this character provides the real world content of which you are so fond. There is no case to answer here as the character is clearly notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't judge a book by its cover: the interview provides evidence that the actor is notable, not the character. If it was the character that was being interviewed, I would be inclined to agree with you, but fictional characters can't give interviews - they aren't real people. You are going to have to come up with at least some real-world evidence that this character is notable to support you claims, but an interveiw with an actor is not it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be creating a burden that would be impossible to meet. If there's no "real-world" information, then it fails PLOT; if there is "real-world" information, then it only shows the notability of a "real-world" subject, but not the fictional character itself. How exactly can any fictional character ever be notable under such requirements? DHowell (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of significant real-world coverage contained in an article. This means that while television series Family Matters may be the subject of significant real-world coverage, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on every fictional character, episode, or scene that appears in the series, such that the coverage contains only trivial details or only information about the plot. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into a list of characters. Hobit (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect all to List of Family Matters characters, which was redirected to Family Matters in January and should IMO be restored. Character lists are an often recommended practice for characters whose articles do/would lack significant real-world information, but who have "some" notability otherwise (per Family Matters, these characters were ~~main~~ characters for multiple seasons). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the list above unless it was redirected through an AfD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge to List of Family Matters characters after reverting that redirect. But whether to keep or merge doesn't need to be decided at AfD. That's what talk pages are for. DHowell (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character is clearly part of notable television series, and there is enough information on the page to warrant his own article. Dream Focus 12:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Family Matters characters which should be turned into a full article for this purpose. These are relatively minor characters which are better served by selective coverage in list than stand alone articles. I think the nominator has drawn the line in approximately the right place as to what should be listified and what should be kept outright (i.e. Laura Winslow and Steve Urkle, are not bundled in this nomination). Eluchil404 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Family Matters characters. Individually, these character articles do not satisfy the guidelines in place as part of WP:FICT at this time. Several of the characters could have reasonable, well-sources, articles about them and I can be convinced of their individual notability-- but the articles as they currently stand do not do this. If these better articles are subsequently written, then the redirects can be removed. JRP (talk) 17:23, 15 March 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.