Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional characters/Closed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is a list of closed deletion debates related to fictional characters. For the list of active debates, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional characters.

If this list becomes too long, please move old items to the archive.


This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. -- RHaworth 07:57:32, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Scarface references in south park

Scarface references in south park are non-notable. freestylefrappe 04:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete fancruft. Martg76 04:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree fancruft. --J. Nguyen 06:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inane rambling from fans of an inane show. --Agamemnon2 09:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletee. as per nom. Alf 10:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete... but I respect its authoritah. --Tysto 15:24, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
  • Delete Say allo to my leetle Fren'!!TheDeletator 16:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Sheesh. — RJH 16:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dottore So 16:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mah leetle frein' say so. - Lucky 6.9 17:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.. Fancruft. Optichan 22:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This user needs to be watched -- he's posting a lot of junk like this. Paul Klenk 08:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to South Park Roodog2k 17:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Animexclusive

non notable, poorly written article Elfguy 14:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. linkspam, advertising. --DrTorstenHenning 17:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this has an Alexa rank of....wait for it.... 4,950,000th ! I didn't even know they went that low! And, that is down about 4,000,000 places in the last 3 months, apparently. -Splash 22:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok... Sorry for creating an irrevelant article. Please delete. --Polaralex 14:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

`

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Gantz. - Mailer Diablo 05:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gantzs

This page should be deleted because the title is misspelled and there is an article more complete already with the right name (Gantz) JocPro 00:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; Misspelled | Celcius 01:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Amren 01:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Gantz or delete. Jaxl | talk 02:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Although we generally don't redirect mis-spellings pre-emptively, we generally do redirect mis-spellings where people have actually created articles. This is on the basis that if one editor has already made the spelling mistake and been so convinced of it as to create an article, others no doubt will do so in the future, and it is better to direct readers to the correct place than to go around this cycle again. If you see duplicate articles in the future, please refer to Wikipedia:duplicate articles instead of coming to VFD. Merge. Uncle G 03:07:00, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
  • Redirect: I agree with Jaxl’s above comments and it doesn’t look like there’s any detail to merge in — FlooK 04:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Uncle G. No merge needed. - Mgm|(talk) 08:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to avoid future confusion and help those of us who are good at tpyos. Alf 09:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as common misspelling. - ulayiti (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hohobans

Delete. Completely unverifiable; possible hoax. Wound up over at votes for undeletion, but in the interest of fairness, I've posted it here. - Lucky 6.9 02:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment; Well, "Kaput and Zosky" does serve up a fair amount (roughly 6k) of hits. Question is of course if it is a hoax or not. If not, I would vote keep based on the apparent popularity of the cartoon.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celsius (talk • contribs) , at 2005-08-22 02:33:04.
  • I got much the same thing, but nothing that combined with "Hohobans." "Kaput and Zosky" are all over the place and there's a fair-sized article here as well. - Lucky 6.9 03:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only hit for "Kaput and Zosky" hohobans is VfU. Niteowlneils 03:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not unverifiable, just as-yet unverified. It seems unlikely to me that a French cartoon would have such odd names (h is aspirated in French so I expect thathoho signifies a rather rare sound). I have noted the basic facts on the talk page of Kaput and Zösky so no factual information would be lost if this article were deleted. --05:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Dottore So 05:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no Google or Yahoo search hits for Hohobans, and Hohoban hits don't have anything to do with this. Zoe 05:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The page contains claims about "Hohobans." The claims are unfortunately unreferenced. There is no actual verification of the existence of the Hohoban, much less any verificatory source that suggests notability sufficient for inclusion in an encyclopedia. WP accepts stubs, but these have guidelines; WP is under no obligation to accept unreferenced, unverified claims, especially those which are in all likelihood hoaxes. Should a claim of authenticity be made via Tony Sidaway's [1] or Lucky's [2] posts on the related Talk pages, my vote to delete shall remain almost certainly unchanged; simply because something purpotedly exists should not by any means be taken to suggest it automatically deserves mention in an encyclopedia. That requires notability, as explained in WP:N and WP:V. Absent that standard, there is no basis for an encyclopedic article on the subject.—Encephalon | ζ  06:43:32, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pollard and Friends

For the prior VFD discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pollard and Friends/2005-05-03.

Redelete: this page already went through VFD and was nuked. Hoax page about a UK Simpsons spin-off. Speediable? JDoorjam 04:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • If it's the same content, yes. CanadianCaesar 04:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; Was deleted once before — Linnwood 05:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's not the same content, but it remains pure speculation with no sources to verify its validity. (see this Google search) - Mgm|(talk) 08:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for hoaxery. --Agamemnon2 10:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 of the debate was Delete, should not have been relisted. Radiant_>|< 07:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Day of my Capture

Not notable web page (alexa: rank 1,599,879). Nothing links to this page (google search), promotion. feydey 16:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn website vanity. --Etacar11 02:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Could someone please explain that because It's not a popular webpage, the article should be deleted? and I don't understand how I am being vain, If I had stated eg.The best show in the world, nothing is better.etc, I would consider that as vain.--Tutacanaras 08:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Please note that Wikipedia is not a directory of website and consider reading WP:VAIN. Since nothing links to the site according to google, and Alexa seems to indicate it doesn't get much visitors, we need more evidence to show that this site is actually popular. - Mgm|(talk) 10:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • It does not get many visitors but It's an article about the program, Not the website. This is an encyclopedia of everything, And this is a program.P.S: The website was put there to show that the show exists. You can remove the link if you wish.--Tutacanaras 08:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Hi there. It is a common misconception that WP is "an encyclopedia of everything." This isn't true. WP is a free encyclopedia that is being written as a wiki, but it does not accept every possible contribution. You might like to look at some of the policies and guidelines that govern the acceptability of articles. If you're looking for a place that will accept articles on nearly everything, try Everything2.com.—Encephalon | ζ  07:03:11, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
relisting for more discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Many newbies seem to be confused by accusations of vanity. I understand that Wikipedia uses a special, non-common definition for the term. In Wikipedia, "vanity" means that the article was created by its subject, a friend of the subject, or a member of the subject (in case of organisations) but no one else knows or cares about it. It does not necessarily mean that the article praises the subject. In fact, an article insulting its subject might still be vanity. I propose some sort of explanatory page about the term vanity. — JIP | Talk 07:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No indication of notability. DES (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 03:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable / vanity / advertising. Cnwb 04:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Its not an encyclopedia of everything. nn. -- DS1953 04:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT.—Encephalon | ζ  07:02:46, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toon force

Delete: Not encyclopedic. Original research (at best). Cleduc 23:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nonsense and OR. ManoaChild 23:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Should've been speedied.Amren (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Scott Tenorman Must Die. -Splash 03:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radiohead (South Park)

Another stub like Phil collins (south park) and Mr. Garrison's Father (South Park). I'd say delete unless someone is interested in creating and article on the relevant episode. Soltak 16:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was article has changed significantly, so not deleted. JYolkowski // talk 19:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] US Manga Corps

Not notable. brenneman(t)(c) 05:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Not only that, I strongly suspect the author is a sockpuppet of either Maoririder or Wiki brah. I'm thinking Maoririder. Delete as no content, not notable and a waste of time. - Lucky 6.9 05:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Lucky6.9. Hamster Sandwich 06:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Lucky6.9. --Apyule 06:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Lucky6.9. --Tysto 06:21, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Central Park Media (though that's similarly microstubby). US Manga Corps isn't (primarily) an online store; they're a licensor and distributor. —Cryptic (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established, or even hinted at in a vague kind of way. CanadianCaesar 08:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above --Agamemnon2 10:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above arguments. --Lomedae 13:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I have rewritten the article to be about the North American anime distributor rather than an unknown and trademark infringing website. 132.205.46.188 22:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite, notable early licensee of anime in the US (were they always owned by CPM? It's an old brand if so) see list of titles. --zippedmartin 23:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Central Park Media.--Matteh (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite as per the above. --Mysidia (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bubbles the boob

near nonsense - certainly nn and non-verifiable --Doc (?) 22:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I doubt he exists.Amren 23:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a dead-end, apparently [3]. Flowerparty talk 00:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] D.J.'s World of Pleh

The site in question seems to be just someone's blog, with cartoons. The cafe press link makes me think "advertising," also. Joyous (talk) 02:30, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Thatdog 02:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; nn | Celcius 02:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 03:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, advertising. Dragonfiend 17:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete oh my, i'm d.j., i run the blog in question (just found it tonight while doing some deep searching). get it off of here, please! it (to me) looks like a waste of the internet. the blog isn't known enough to have a wikipedia, and even then i'd question having one (someone writing about MY background on the creation of the blog!). anywho, thanks for wanting to delete it! Djparsons226 05:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was No Consensus. brenneman(t)(c) 11:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phil collins (south park)

Delete Wikipedia is neither a blog nor a repository for useless information. The portrayal of Phil Collins on South Park is not notable; it lasted one episode and was only a minor plot device. Soltak 04:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Phil Collins and add any important information to that article Cyclone49 04:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Timmy 2000 since most SP episodes have their own article this is a fine stub start to it. SchmuckyTheCat 05:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Timmy 2000 now it exists LOL. Kappa 05:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. This is useless as an article. - Lucky 6.9 07:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 07:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per reasons stated above. No need for redirects, and all links should be deleted in addition. -Sunglasses at night 07:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Dekete Dunc|☺ 21:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Timmy 2000. CanadianCaesar 21:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Timmy 2000. --Matt Yeager 22:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable. Nandesuka 23:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Agamemnon2 11:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Timmy 2000. Jobe6 19:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • merge to timmy 2000 sounds ok
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scythe: the bounty hunter

Non-notability. As non-notable as it gets, a random Flash animation, of no especial popularity or artistic merit. --Maru 15:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to SpongeBob SquarePants. -Splash 07:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Chum Bucket

Erwin Walsh

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Coffee 10:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Garrison's Father (South Park)

Delete as non-notable South Park fancruft or merge to the relevant episode if you must. Soltak 19:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Cruft, whatever text is here can be a mention in the episode. SchmuckyTheCat 00:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This title isn't even useful as a redirect. Also, would anyone who weighs in here leave word with the original author that he isn't being picked on, but rather being naughty? This is just the latest in a long line of these sorts of contribs. - Lucky 6.9 02:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect--this is a useful redir (for example, someone might want to learn more about the episode containing Mr. Garrison's father, but not know the ep. title. Clearly doesn't deserve its own article, however. Maybe we should start Minor characters in South Park? Meelar (talk) 15:00, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge witht he episode that it is in.Jobe6 19:09, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • In the event that "merge" is the outcome, does anyone remeber what episode that is? I don't remember seeing it. Soltak 19:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Mr. Garrison. -- Reinyday, 19:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cool Tapes

Cool Tapes is perhaps a semi-notable item of Homestar Runner and that is the reason I believe it to not be worthy of a speedy delete. I vote to Merge to Homestar Runner. Derktar 22:40, August 20, 2005 (UTC).

  • Keep or merge somewhere per nomination. Kappa 23:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Homestar Runner.
  • Delete Homestar runner is too big for this. It isn't notable. Howabout1 Talk to me! 23:44, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Howabout1 is right. It is frightening how the most trivial nonsense is written into WP every day. WP is being bled dry, in an uncontrollable literary DIC, hour by hour.—Encephalon | ζ  00:44:15, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
  • Delete Cool Tapes is too insignificant to be noted on Wikipedia. This fictional band was introduced in a cartoon this past Monday, and is not likely to make another appearance or become a major arc in the site. The purpose of Homestar Runner-related articles on Wikipedia is to explain the most essential parts of Homestar Runner to the general public. HRWiki is intended to cater to the fans. Thus, it contains all of the hundreds of more obscure bits to the site, such as the relatively small article for Cool Tapes. Homestar Runner is already too long of an article to catalogue such a minute part of homestarrunner.com. Granted, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but with that in mind, would it be practical to copy everything from HRWiki onto Wikipedia? —BazookaJoe 01:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dottore So 05:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a guide to the Internet --MicroFeet 08:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. That particular cartoon wasn't even posted until Monday, as noted above. It hasn't even existed long enough to gain notability among many Homestar fans. So this particular bit of cruft certainly isn't notable for the general public. --Several Times 19:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 16:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Babydramon

A rumored character? Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Al 13:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Sounds like fancruft to me, but you might want to ask the WikiProject Pokémon Adoption Center what they think. No vote. --IByte 13:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Except Digimon != Pokémon. --Al 14:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; if it's not a hoax, then it's definitely not notable. 39 google results. No official pictures or cards. Jaxl | talk 15:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or add to mondegreen. Tonywalton 17:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft. Andrew pmk 19:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I know it's not a hoax article, but this character is not notable yet (lacks data etc). Do not add to mondegreen. Punkmorten 21:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I made this page to get rid of a red link on the List_of_Digimon page. If you want I can make just one page for all the rumored Digimon. CanadaGirl 22:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a real Digimon, made official through the FAX Digimon contest in Japan. Several notable Digimon (like Cyber Dramon) have been such Digimon. There's no information on Babydramon other than his name, but if we're going to have Digimon entries, why not have all Digimon entries, even if they have to all be merged into List_of_Digimon? It feels incomplete and inconsistent to have only Digimon that are (somewhat arbitrarily) deemed notable. Every Pokémon has its own individual entry, however non-notable, and every, or nearly every Naruto character has at least a short biography on the Characters_of_Naruto page. If every ninja and Pokémon can have an entry or a section on a page, why can't every Digimon? Shining Celebi 00:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Shining Celebi. -- Toksyuryel talk | contrib avatar 01:35, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 1. Babydramon is an official Digimon as cited by Shining_Celebi. 2. Whether or not this is fancruft is highly dependant on whether one is a fan of the series and as such by putting this entry on vote, you place all individual character entries of not just television series but movies as well on trial. Whatever should happen to this entry should be applied to other individual character pages as well. 3. Whether or not this entry is fancruft is irrevelant as the purpose of Wikipedia is to be and I quote: The Free Encyclopedia and as such should be an Encyclopedia as defined by http://www.dictionary.com , "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.". The keyword is comprehensive and this entry indeed fulfills the job of an encyclopedia entry by contributing comprehensive information on the subject (Babydramon) and its parent (Digimon). 4. This article does not merit deletion according to the Wikipedia Vote For Deletion policy page. This is not a hoax, and if deemed to be so minor as to not merit its own entry, then should be merged with an appropriate entry. Takato 01:47:34, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
  • Merge or Expand. If it's real, adding the history Shining Celebi mentioned to the article would be useful (rather than just "he's rumored to exist since he was mentioned in passing in one episode"). - Matthew0028 04:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Needs Improvement. I've done a lot of work creating articles for "rumored" characters, and to make such an article work, it needs to be longer than a few sentences and backed by reasons why this character was rumored to appear while never actually appearing. For example, my articles on rumored Mortal Kombat characters Nimbus Terrafaux and Belokk contain real facts and reasons, rather than speculation. I'm not a fan of Digimon, yet I'm not going to say anything about fancruft. I just don't think the article itself is encyclopedically noteworthy unless it is expanded, merged, and/or improved. (Notorious4life 06:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep real Digimon. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Ra-Tet. Information appears already to be there. -Splash 01:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ashet

Please can we delete this? Minor buffycruft --Doc (?) 22:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, why would you want to delete this? Could be merged somewhere. Kappa 23:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, loads of reasons. I couldn't find a suitable merge - but now see I didn't look hard enough (sheepishliy -although proud not to be a buffy-buff) merge with Ra-Tet --Doc (?) 23:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per above.--Scimitar parley 14:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Doc. Nandesuka 23:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Ra-Tet (which itself should be merged into a higher level Buffy article). No reason per WP:FICT to keep such trivia on its own. Barno 18:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Recess (TV series). I count 5r-2k. The "merge or redirect" vote implies a redirect either way. As for Maoririder's vote, well, he added the VfD tag in the first edit, and then voted keep. That seems pointless to me; I'm not of the opinion that the nominator gets to cast a straight keep vote in the absence of extenuating or procedural circumstances. -Splash 00:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Randall Weems

Keep. --Maoririder 18:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Sigh...redirect to the article about the TV show "Recess" unless this can be substantially improved. - Lucky 6.9 18:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Lucky. -Satori 18:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Keep rewritten stub -Satori 19:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect (by the way, this article was VfD'ed by the article's creator, even from the very first version of the article. This is misuse of the VfD system and disruptive). ike9898 18:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've cleaned it up a bit. There seems to be more info on a junior golfer of the same name, but I think we have a useable stub. I expanded it in hopes Maoririder will learn by example. - Lucky 6.9 19:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Recess (TV series) (most of the content of even the expanded stub is already there) or just redirect. This is listed as a "secondary character" on the show page, and in general I don't think we need articles on secondary characters on TV shows unless the show is very famous indeed or the character has become notable outside the context of the show. DES (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, more convenient for users than if it's merged. Kappa 22:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Recess (TV series) as per Lucky and DES. As stated above, most of the content is already there anyway. --Metropolitan90 02:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Recess (TV series). This will be more convenient for users than if it has its own article. Nandesuka 23:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 of the debate was Redirect. Redwolf24 05:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hannibal Lecktor

Not substantive enough to warrant a separate article. Merge at best, if not totally delete. Bad faith addition by someone who just wants to see their name in lights.Rainbowwarrior1977 06:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


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.
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 of the debate was Merge. Redwolf24 05:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slippery Jack

This article is non-encyclopedic nonsense. There is no context. The author just banged out a few sentences and left us with a mess to clean up obviously.Rainbowwarrior1977 06:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Klepper Octopus

Likely hoax [4] [5], or at any rate unverifiable. CanadianCaesar 00:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. I remember seeing references to astral octopi in another ECK article which was up for deletion a few weeks ago. I don't remember the fate (or title) of that article, though. Pburka 01:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Gopal Das and Rami Nuri were both up for VfD a little while ago, and the former mentioned this octopus, but there were never any references. I have merged those into something with references, and the octopus had to go, unfortunately. CanadianCaesar 02:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • More to the point: [6], delete. Flowerparty talk 02:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete unverifiable. --Apyule 02:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Humbug. --Lomedae 22:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified. Almost sounds like something out of D&D. --Etacar11 00:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Smudge

Hoax. There is no IMDB entry for a film called "Mr Smudge", and a Google search for "'Mr Smudge' 72 foot rabbit" pulls up 1 unrelated hit (somehow). The external link appears to be a photoshop of a normally proportioned rabbit with some women who just saw how much the price of gasoline went up today. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. sigh. Alex.tan 01:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete speedy? Dottore So 04:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Sent it to BJAODN-MicroFeet 06:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--SpaceMonkey 19:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete clear hoax. And don't forget to add Mr. Rizo's hilarious comments on the BJAODNpage.Zanaq 20:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified/hoax. Wouldn't his height be given in meters? --Etacar11 00:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non existant. Secretlondon 05:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, then redirect to Jamie_Kane. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boy*d Upp

Important Note MattC, the original creator of the articles, has apologised over them. They were not a part of any official BBC campaign, and simply a 'it seemed a good idea at the time' moment by an employee. Please don't write angry e-mails to the BBC over this. --Barberio 00:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This page is an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign.--Barberio 08:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Since sanity is evidently scarce here, I ought to point out that the BoingBoing article makes no accusations, and cites no concrete evidence that this is actually an "advertising campaign" at all. It is merely a suspicion, which is why the headline ends with a question mark. Did you not get taught at school the difference between a question and a statement? Consequently I don't understand how you've rationalized this sudden jump from BoingBoing's premise...
"This page might be an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign"
...to the logically distinct premise...
"This page is an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign".
I also suggest that any other sheepy votes based solely on Barberio's bogus reasoning, and shameless scaremongering, should be discounted.
You should also be aware that you are, in effect, creating a viral advertising campaign for the BoingBoing site amongst readers of this page. Perhaps we should confirm that Barberio isn't an employee of the BoingBoing site? :)
However, it is far more likely that the BoingBoing site launched a public attack on the BBC in the hopes of provoking the BBC into publicly striking back at them, with the hopes of exploiting the BBC's far wider audience as a means to gain more publicity for itself, thus increasing its potential advertising revenues.
Same applies to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jamie Kane - Aya 42 T C 20:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Um... Well, not entirely sure why trying to make a personal attack against me is relevent here? Not entirely sure if you are supporting deletion or keeping either.
The original creator of these articles, a BBC employee, has said that he did not have official sanction on creating them, and has apologised for doing so. Can I suggest that instead of whipping up BoingBoing Vs BBC arguments, we just accept the apology, and quietly progress to the deletion of these articles. We don't want to make it hard on the guy for an honest mistake by turning it into a big argument. --Barberio 00:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. There was a smiley face after one of the paragraphs to indicate it was semi-humorous, but be careful when writing things like you did just there. People tend to believe you whether you're right or not. - Aya 42 T C 01:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
User:MattC only created the boy-band article. The original article was created by someone who is not necessarily affiliated with the BBC. RichW 18:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, please. The BBC and BoingBoing are both pretty well-known to much of the Wikipedia audience, and neither of them particularly needs this kind of stunt for publicity. Instead of responding to speculation with more irresponsible speculation, might I remind people that assuming good faith is a principle that can be applied to people outside Wikipedia as well. --Michael Snow 00:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. I've never heard of BoingBoing before. - Aya 42 T C 01:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unlike the now edited JK article this is really useless. Boris SDC 12:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, letting advertising onto wikipedia will destroy all that is good about wikipedia. Bigtoe 16:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Real or not, this is stupid. --Hoovernj 15:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Useless blatent advertising AviN456 14:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete See the BoingBoing article on these entries. [7] --Barberio 08:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable fictional band. Kappa 08:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree, this is not a major or notable fictional band, and the articles intent is to promote a new work of fiction, not record an established one. --Barberio 08:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reasons as Barberio above. --Stereo 09:02:29, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, document it is a game/ad, as an early warning for the other users. --Shaddack 09:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I echo Barberio also. Viral marketing on Wikipedia shouldn't be tolerated. --taliswolf 09:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It'll work so much better as a warning. / Peter Isotalo 10:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Like its fictional bandmember above, this "band" is apparently faintly notable. With an appropriate commentary (or tag?), this could provide material for marketing research.
  • Delete per Barberio. Nandesuka 12:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Erwin Walsh
  • Delete Spliced 13:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --*drew 14:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable. If anyone wants to merge with Viral marketing that's okay with me too. JYolkowski // talk 14:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Ben Houston 15:40, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Barberio above. Dottore So 16:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Misuse of Wikipedia. This is just spamvertising in a different form. android79 16:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Jamie Kane given Uncle G's excellent rewrite of that article. android79 12:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment To appease the people who want to keep, can I suggest that we redirect this, and any other attempts at Viral Marketing to the Viral marketing article. Or a new meta article 'Abuses of Wikipedia for Viral Marketing'. --Barberio 16:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notable are they not. And I specifically oppose the redirect suggestion. -Splash 16:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Although Uncle G's work on the related article is admirable, my vote above stands since I'm not yet persuaded of the case for keeping the possible redirect target. -Splash 01:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the content is worth keeping, then it should be moved to a page about the game. But aside from abusing Wikipedia, I'm not sure the game is, as yet, notable. --William Pietri 16:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Viral marketing is not an acceptable use of wikipedia resources. --GraemeL 16:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and block the offender indefinitely, including the IP address space of the BBC, until a formal apology is made. This is nothing more or less than vandalism for profit. Wikipedia should come down hard on those responsible. --FOo 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The IP address does indeed come from the BBC :[8]. I suppose this is just some summer student being clever or something? Surely the Beeb is tech-savvy enough to know that we can work out if they added the article! -Splash 17:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • This is exactly why Wikipedia needs to make it absolutely clear that this behavior is not considered funny, positive, or even acceptable. It is spam and vandalism; it is against the rules; and it is a blocking offense. In this case, because it's being done for the benefit of a widely-known organization, it's also an excellent opportunity to make an example -- to show that Wikipedia will refuse to put up with for-profit abuse. --FOo 17:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
        • True, to WP:AN/I perhaps? I suspect, however, that a mere admin is unlikely to want to admonish the BBC; perhaps the Foundation should. -Splash 17:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
          • "admonish the BBC"?? Because somebody wrote three sentences on Wikipedia during his coffee break? Hello? It's not like this is a concerted attack on our foundation principles. It is even a great example of how such an approach backfires on Wikipedia, where people can now read that the band is fictional. dab (ᛏ) 18:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable advertising. If and only if this viral marketing campaign becomes notable in and of itself (like, for example, I love bees or The Subservient Chicken) give it an article. As it stands now, it is a misuse of Wikipedia. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Jamie Kane in light of Uncle G's edit. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — WCityMike (T | C) 17:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. So we're supposed to keep it as notable based upon the fact that someone trolled Wikipedia? How come we don't ever keep other trolled articles then? E.g, Mother Fucker was an attempt by an unknown Indonesian male to put spam on Wikipedia. It took place in July of 2002. The police have no further leads! External links: http://www.motherfuckerswikipedia.com/. Come on, this is just silly. D. G. 17:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect to viral marketing. Should this turn out as something notable, revert to independent article. dab (ᛏ) 18:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a run-of-the-mill viral marketing incident, it did not achieve notability. Don't delete it to "send a message"; delete it because it's not noteworthy. -- Curps 19:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. Noisy | Talk 19:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable.  Grue  19:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that the guerrilla marketing aspects have been explained. Zoe 21:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)Since several users keep deleting the viral marketing aspects, this makes the article no longer notable. Delete. Zoe 23:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as an example of viral marketing by the BBC, and merge the Jamie Kane stuff into this article. I've removed the self reference to make it suitable for our mirror sites. Thryduulf 21:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • redirect to Jamie Kane following the rewrite of that article. Thryduulf 09:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per Jamie Kane. However, revert 'guerilla marketing' aspects as hopelessly POV. Almafeta 21:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I created the Boy*D_Upp page from inside the BBC network on Friday evening after stumbling across the Jamie Kane entry linked from the Pop Justice forums. My action was in no way part of an orchestrated marketing campaign on behalf of the Jamie Kane project team nor was it intended for my page to be attributed to the BBC, which has been implied. It was nothing more than common garden vandalism for which I am sorry. MattC 22:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable and advertising -- I'm sure they've already got their interest boost from this little fuss, though they might want to think over what damage has been done to their reputation. - Motor (talk) 23:16:53, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle. -- The Anome 22:31, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Abuse of Wikipedia. -- Arwel 22:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If some actual article about the campaign/project/hoax emerges, redirecting there would also be an acceptable alternative. --Michael Snow 22:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This marker represents the point where Uncle G rewrote the associated Jamie Kane article

  • Delete. Wikipedia's response to being hijacked (by anyone) as part of "viral marketing" should be: "No thank you". - Nunh-huh 23:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane, which appears to contain a better explanation of what's going on. --Alan Au 00:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That is, if the Jamie Kane page survives its own VfD. Otherwise, delete. --Alan Au 00:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • As stated in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jamie Kane, this purported band is entirely fictional, and thus fails WP:MUSIC utterly. As per WP:FICT, this should be a redirect to Jamie Kane, which is now an article about the alternate reality game by the BBC by that name, which includes this finctional band name as part of its storyline. Uncle G 00:33:10, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Jamie Kane. --Andre (talk) 01:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete* People like this should be sterilized to avoid futher pollution of the gene pool.
  • Delete* Pointless advertising.
  • Delete or redirect to Jamie Kane. --Parallel or Together? 10:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Jamie Kane. David | Talk 10:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane, for the reasons stated above. --Jdcope 11:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane --WS 11:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Abusive marketing practice.
  • Merge and redirect with/to Jamie Kane. ed g2s • talk 13:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and/or redirect I'm not sure the actual game deserves an entry, but certainly this shouldn't be one at this point. If the game catches on and becomes hugely popular, then fine, but at this early stage, it shouldn't be an article. (My vote on Jamie Kane was it could be included in a larger article about online games.) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 14:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect To the Jamie Kane article, which explains things fully. Mark Williamson 14:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. AnthonySorace 15:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for advertising.
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane — ciphergoth 15:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane Daemon8666 15:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane --nwatson 15:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Redirect to Jamie Kane. Kaldari 16:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. WAS 4.250 16:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- The whole matter sets a bad precedent, delete it. If necessary, create a new article for the game. -- 66.159.216.215 16:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane -Eisnel 16:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect - to Jamie Kane or whatever the original article was as long as the Jamie Kane article reflects the controversy and fictious origins of this - same for all similar pages. Move for admins to speedily convert this over to end controversy. - Master Of Ninja 16:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane, SqueakBox 16:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. bpt 17:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. RichW 18:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. —Wanion 21:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect or delete I second Alan Au, redirect if Jamie Kane survived, delete if not. obo 21:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. feydey 00:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable; unlikely to be searched for and not enough msterial outside of what is already covered in Jamie Kane. mholland 02:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with and Redirect to Jamie Kane. (Merge [9] version) Tenbaset 08:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete then redirect to avoid keeping history but block future recreation Mozzerati 21:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • "delete" Block BBC to use wiki, that way the BBC wont be able to acidently on purpose create advertising, then blame a sheepgoat when caught. 84.13.141.203 04:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The 6th Assassin-Titan

Non-notable Anime character (three Google hits for "Assassin-Titan") -- Sandstein 15:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Strike WP:V, just 'cos somethings fictional doesn't mean you can't verify it exists. Whether you'd want to is another issue. --zippedmartin 00:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Encephalon. Nandesuka 16:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • At the least merge to some character page, or the yuugiou fans will just recreate it one day. --zippedmartin 00:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 04:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tobias Snape

person, which didnt/does not exist

  • Keep, Tarzan didn't and does not exist either. Kappa 18:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: long precedence of articles on fictional characters in Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes 18:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Since when was just being about a fictional character a good criterion for deletion? --Mysidia (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep not only is it an invalid reason, but the nomination is unsigned. CanadianCaesar 20:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, invalid reason from an unsigned, anonymous, first time edit. --Presnell 20:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - please don't bite the newbies. Proto t c 10:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Agree with Mysidia. Have I missed something? --Celestianpower hab 20:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - If you deleted this you would have to delted ALL of the fictional characters...which would be insane--Aeon 21:22 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable fictional character. I ask again - why are anonymous users allowed to nominate people for vfd when their votes aren't eligible to be counted. Capitalistroadster 23:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - yes they are. An account is not necessary to participate in wikipedia. Anonymous votes and nominations should only be discounted if bad faith can be proven. Proto t c 10:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utterly non-notable fictional character: the only information in the article -- the only possible information in the article -- is that he is the father of Severus Snape and married a muggle. Not encyclopedic until, at the very least, the next book in the series. --Calton | Talk 00:17, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete in 50 years time when everyone has forgotten about the Harry Potter thing. Or maybe not, depending on how computer storage, processing, and communications have developed. Omit from print edition of wikipedia, and shoot Rowling for using such a crass device for exploring racism issues. --zippedmartin 00:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not because of any issues with Harry Potter (I quite like it) or because it's a fictional character, but because it is a useless article containing no information that cannot also be found by reading the article on Severus Snape. If someone wants to bang together a list of minor characters in Harry Potter, perhaps a merge might be useful, but this article is absolutely worthless.
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 03:03
  • Redirect and Merge anything useful into the article on Severus Snape. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Harry Potter characters. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Pottercruft. Character doesn't even appear in the book, is just discussed - briefly - in around 4 sentences or so. Is there a List of minor characters in Harry Potter or something similar that this sort of thing can go in? Proto t c 10:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and Merge Preferably as per Proto, otherwise as per Grutness. Caerwine 02:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Kill Dumbledore --SPUI (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - He's a really minor character in the books and didn't even have any dialogue so far. Merge info either with the Severus Snape or the minor characters page. unsigned by 80.131.252.203 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Merge and Redirect to whoever the guy is the son of, and I assume most of the deleters above also mean merge and redirect, right? Func( t, c, @, ) 14:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 04:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baltro and Steng

Why have an article on a subject so obscure it has only 3 results on google, two of which reference back to wikipedia? Far too specialist. Erwin Walsh

  • Keep -- Zatch Bell is clearly not obscure. What google provides is apparently little indication on this subject.. did you have a search done for references to the subject that would be in Japanese? --Mysidia (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps, then, the article belongs in the Japanese wikipedia? Erwin Walsh
No, because the article is written in English, it clearly the one that belongs on the English Wikipedia. I can't read Japanese, so this is pretty speculative, but if a subject is notable enough that it should be in the Japanese Wikipedia, then it should most definitely have an article written in English on the English Wikipedia also. --Mysidia (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I would agree that Mysidia's arguments as to retaining within the English Wikipedia and of overall non-obscurity is sound. However, I disagree with the conclusion this justifies a stand alone article.
Should this not then be Expanded or Merged (with a possible redirect) with the main Zatch Bell article's reference to the Baltro and Steng characters? Alternatively, should all of the Zatch Bell characters have expanded entries develop? Looking at what seems to be the Japanese wikipedia Zatch Bell entry, it would appear (from my feeble attempt to use Google's translator) that the Japanese entry has the individual characters only described within the Zatch Bell page, not on individual pages. This would imply a Merge back into the main article, with a Redirect added at Baltro and Steng to the main Zatch Bell article, as the best course. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abb3w (talk • contribs) on 21:59, 14 August 2005.
  • Merge/Redirect to Zatch Bell! --Alan Au 22:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I still can't believe they renamed it Zatch Bell... --zippedmartin 00:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And Gash Bell is somehow better? --Calton | Talk 00:42, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
It's a closer transcription of ガッシュ at any rate. Though I guess you don't care much about that if you're a US dub watcher. Anyway, delete, if someone wants to merge the content into either the anime article or a <anime> characters article, that's fair enough. Kenshin might just about warrent his own article, Saitō Hajime does not. Well.. he does but... er.. you get the idea. --zippedmartin 01:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I live in Tokyo and don't care what they call it in the US or why an exact romaji rendering of the original matters to anyone. I assume they renamed it for the same reason that Calpis drinks and Canon's BJ printers aren't called that in the US. --Calton | Talk 16:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
God knows why they did it, my brain just has problems when the subtitled names bare little relation to the dialogue (not a problem you have with printers). If you(pl.) watch either dub without little letters along the bottom, I'm sure that isn't an issue. --zippedmartin 17:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete outright: nothing worth merging, and if the Japanese Wikipedia doesn't think it's worth a stand-alone article, then it's not. --Calton | Talk 00:42, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Right then. Delete and Redirect entry to main ZB! article. Abb3w 01:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 08:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darth Janus

Delete Darthcruft. -Splash 18:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, and Darth Cruft is a pretty funny potential alias. JDoorjam 19:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. UkPaolo 19:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, delete. Erwin Walsh
  • Delete, eith fan -cruft ot -fic. -Darth Deletor 20:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • cruft, fiction, who cares, just Delete Soltak 21:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I get 4 useful hits for "Darth Janus"; seems low even for cruft. (Incidentally, "Darth Anus" returns 18.) Flowerparty talk 23:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A Sith Jawa? Obviously a joke. Skim the last section. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Obviously. What's a Jawa? -Splash 03:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • You know the little guys in the first movie (and I mean the first movie, not "Episode 1") that wear little brown robes and kidnap the droids in the beginning? Those are Jawas. I suppose it would be speciesist to say that one couldn't be a Jedi... -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Make the world a better place. Celcius 01:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obviously a bad joke. syphonbyte 19:11, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Denis Salnikov hoax

Vandalism: The user who created this page also made edits to other eXile pages which were designed to vilify the newspaper or its contributors rather than give information; Strange POV; Factually incorrect: how is it a "hoax" if there is no evidence that Salnikov is a pseudonym? There is evidence that this entry and others by user 199.107.55.222 are part of a campaign by Little Green Footballs readers who vowed revenge on the eXile following the recent posting of an article by Gary Brecher, who also came under attack by 199.107.55.222.

  • Weird POV rant. Previously tagged for speedy but it doesn't seem to qualify as one. --malathion talk 20:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it does, malathion. Try A6 of the CSD. My vote is delete, and speedy delete if you agree on A6. Regards—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:31:25, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
  • Keep. see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The eXile for further details (that was a strawman argument, see my comments below). --MarkSweep 00:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • COMMENT: Hi Mark. I'm sorry but I don't quite understand. The eXILE VfD was initiated by User:199.107.55.222 [10]. This was a very strongly worded VfD against an article on the eXILE magazine, and seems to have been motivated by reasons other than a concern for WP policy. When VfD editors started disagreeing with User:199.107.55.222's take on the article, he actually reworded his VfD even more harshly. [11]. The article proposed by malathion for deletion is a piece on one Denis Salnikov. It was written by User:199.107.55.222 [12]. From start to end, this article appears to be an unrelenting personal attack of Mr. Salnikov, and as malathion points out, there is no modifying view to counter the strident POV by the author. For some reason User:199.107.55.222 does not seem very fond of either eXILE or its employees. Anyway, I voted to delete this as it looks like a transparent attack piece. There is some question over whether it qualifies as a speedy; I think it just might under A6, which states that short articles that exist simply to disparage their subjects are candidates for speedy (the shortness of short is not defined). I don't think malathion agrees with that route, but there I agree with him about delete. Have I missed something about the article that convinced you it should stay? Regards—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 02:08:50, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • Let me clarify: I think this is a worthwhile topic, that should be included in Wikipedia. Clearly the current version of the article is far from the standard set by the most brilliant prose on Wikipedia, but that means it should be improved, rather than deleted. I don't care whether the article is merged, renamed, etc. I'm merely stating my opinion that the "Denis Salnikov" affair is a topic that's, uhm, keep-worthy. --MarkSweep 01:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Mark, we are in fundamental agreement. The only reason my vote (delete) differs from yours (keep) is that I'm looking at this from the closer's POV, in which he has to decide whether the page at "Denis Whatsisname hoax" has to be deleted, or kept. Because we all agree the title is itself biased, it should be deleted (or as you say, "renamed"). A redirect is unsuitable for the same reason, and unnecessary if the new title contains his name anyway. I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to anyone writing an article now or in the future with a suitable title ("Denis Whatsis") and dealing with it with the NPOV. The reason I didn't vote "merge" is that there is nothing in the article that needs to be merged, there is no other article at present to merge to, and currently the article is itself an unrelenting personal attack from start to end, such that it really should be deleted on sight. WP should have as many good articles as possible and as few poor ones; but it should have zero personal attacks. Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ  16:31:05, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

Rename to Denis Salnikov or Merge into the eXile, (edited see below). we should give an NPOV account of how it has been suggested that this is a fictional/satirical character, explain how his club review style etc. relates to eXile's style, and how he relates to the novi ruskii phenomenon. this personage is notable, even if he doesn't deserve its own article Dsol 16:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Dsol, the reason I urged delete is that the title seems to me irretrivably one sided. If the title page was just "David Whatsisname", it would be fine to simply edit the article to introduce the NPOV. In fact that would be the best solution. But this title should to be deleted. If an editor is interested in starting an article on David after that, he is entirely free to do so.—Encephalon | ζ  22:02:00, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
  • Rename to Denis Salnikov or Merge into the eXile, but absolutely do not delete as per Dsol abakharev 04:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


OK, unless I've misunderstood something, there seems to be a disconnect here. Every one of the above voters is saying the same thing, but is using different words to vote. We agree: David Whatsis is notable, a good article on him is suitable for WP, the current article is a personal attack, the current title is too biased to be maintained even if a perfectly NPOV article on David is written in that title space. What this implies, I think, is a delete vote for the closer. When one says "rename", one is saying "delete the page and start a new one with a new name," because in effect that is what has to be done (if my understanding of the technical process is wrong I hope an admin will correct this statement). Do any one of the above voters have an objection to the following sequence of actions:

  1. Delete the page titled "Denis Salnikov hoax."
  2. Open a new page titled "Denis Salnikov."
  3. Write an NPOV article in that title space on David Salnikov.
  4. Alternatively, instead of 2 and 3, write an NPOV accont of Denis Salnikov in the eXILE article.

If you agree with the above, your vote is delete. If you disagree, it is keep, keep/redirect, or something else that requires maintenance of the page "Denis Salnikov hoax." Regards—Encephalon | ζ  16:47:45, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I was a bit unclear, I guees my vote is Delete, but I meant that most of the content should be reused. Dsol 13:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marc binney

Silly pile of nonsense that lists impossible processes such as freebasing blood and smack to create cannabis. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete Erwin Walsh
  • Comment While I certainly agree this article is probably not the best place for Wikipedia, I suspect this may ave been mistakenly written for Uncyclopedia. I would suggest moving it there. 64.12.116.135 22:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find a single reference for any of the terms or names mentioned. For a laugh, click the link of the supposed drug Herion. --IByte 23:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn vanity and nonsense. ManoaChild 23:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, nonsense. Yep, addicted to a Steward of Gondor. --Etacar11 01:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: restored removed VfD header --IByte 21:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jmmaar

This has got to be a fan creation. If it were canon I would expect a ton of google hits searching for "Jmmaar Vvaw". It turns out one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agropio Fallaver

"Agropio Fallaver is a character featured in the 1980 film The Falls, directed by Peter Greenaway". This is a minor character of a minor cult film, which I do not believe is notable. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 16:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inez (Cyberchase)

Delete Substub about a character on kids TV show Cyberchase already discussed in main article. Soltak 21:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Phoenix

Fictional character. I can't tell if it's part of any published game. Kappa 03:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Kappa has corrected me on the finer points of the CSD. As this is admittedly fictional, it does not qualify for a patent nonsense speedy. A search of Google for "Edward Phoenix" Dungeons Dragons culls zero hits, as does a search for "Edward Phoenix" D&D. This is an RPG character vanity page. (To avoid a wall of text in this nom, I've removed my original vote, see history if you want to see it). Fernando Rizo T/C 04:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this fictional fiction, following the (non-)revelations of Google. -- Hoary 06:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. RPG character. Probably fan-made. Not D&D-cruft because D&D-cruft would be of interest to D&D players in general. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only "Edward Phoenix"-related sites on Google have nothing to do with D&D, so he probably isn't even a canonical character and simply fan-made.--Frag 21:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn fiction character. --Etacar11 23:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether the Sword of Hope campaign whose article was presumably deleted was a real-D&D-sanctioned module or just somebody's local group playing and self-promoting, I can't suggest it's significant enough for a WP article. The search results reported above make me inclined to vote Delete. Barno 01:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, so merge. However this character is already given an entry in Krypto the Superdog, so I will call this a redirect. If anybody wishes to merge more content there, use the history tab to access the old versions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin_Whitney

Character in a cartoon series not notable enough to get his very own page. Garrett Albright 14:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Krypto the Superdog <drini ☎> 14:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 16:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reason this can't be covered in the show's article. Gamaliel 16:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, but regardless, CLEANUP, as the article is quite sloppy in its current state. People need to learn how to write articles that use more than three words per sentence.--Frag 21:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or at work merge with Krypto the Superdog. Nandesuka 23:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arttron

I suspect this character is not notable. Deb 19:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this could probably be a speedy. Some Google hits, but not related to this subject (mostly gamer usernames, etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. -- Visviva 12:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:30, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French dragon

Since there's no context whatsoever, I can only assume it falls under WP:NOT regarding Original Research: namely, this is from someone's personal fictional universe. As such, it doesn't belong. The Literate Engineer 08:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

delete, the guy is a rpg player just fooling around.

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Happy_Turtle

Happy Turtle was an ad for a computer game that apparently does not exist 128.112.24.137 03:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I am unsure whether this is an ad or a joke. Eldereft 08:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I guess the comic is at least real, as it's sold on CafePress. Doesn't seem notable though. "Happy Turtle" googles well, but all results seem to be unrelated to whatever this is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Happy Turtle: The Delete Vote. Happy Turtle gets deleted as non-notable by evil Wikipedians. He remains happy. -Splash 23:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like an advertisement. - Sempron 10:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. Already done, so just applying redirect. -Splash 20:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thracia_Cho-Leem

Tremendously obscure Star Wars trivia. 128.112.24.137 03:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: I left the VfD tag up since that's only supposed to be removed by an admin after the closing of a vote.Tobycat 20:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. --Maru 02:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 19:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ogdru_Jahad

Comic book fancruft. Lazyhound 02:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. No worse than other cruft, and article seems to be reasonable. --Alan Au 04:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have 4,000 words on the Romulans, why stop there? I have only read a little Hellboy so I am uncertain as to how spoileriffic this is, but it might need a plot-elements revealed warning. Eldereft 08:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hellboy. Doesn't even need to be a VfD. Proto t c 09:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kappa 10:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 12:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Main behind-the-scenes villains in Hellboy. Considering the amount of fourth-stringers from Marvel Comics and DC Comics, this is a lot more important storywise. --Pc13 17:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As per above. --jonasaurus 21:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • True enough, and it's better than giving them each an individual entry. Keep. DS 22:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:56, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaegan Blackthorne

Apparent Fanfiction, google brings up no hits and is not part of any Ultima background and should be deleted. RasputinAXP 16:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete either non-canonical or hopelessly obscure. The web has plenty of Ultima info, and this isn't mentioned anywhere I could find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • nn. Delete. Agentsoo 17:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Forbsey 18:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Starblind. Nandesuka 18:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; nn. Jaxl | talk 18:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete contextless, nn. --Etacar11 01:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn--Dysepsion 23:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (but a less cumbersome title may be in order). -- BD2412 talk 05:09, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional characters on the autistic spectrum

50% nonsense, and when that's removed there's not much left. I don't see the point of the list. Tim Pope 18:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nonsense. Nandesuka 18:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It is no longer nonsense. Factitious 23:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, why shouldn't wikipedia users be able to find examples of fictional characters with autism? Kappa 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original, um, "research". Or does Melville actually say anywhere that Captain Ahab is "on the autistic spectrum"? Tupsharru 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • There are dozens of sources which say that Raymond in Rain Man is is autistic. Kappa 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as much of it is unverifiable original research. FCYTravis 20:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • So why not just edit that out? Kappa 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Listing is highly subjective, so qualifies as original research. ManoaChild 21:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Abstain. I would vote to keep if enough is left after the subjective elements are removed. ManoaChild 06:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. Possibly move to fictional characters with autistism if all speculation (Ralph Wiggum? Bert? Come on...) is removed. Sabine's Sunbird 22:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Changed to tentaive keep now speculation is removed. Sabine's Sunbird 23:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. What is left if all speculation is dropped? (This is not intended as a rhetorical question.) Certainly most, maybe even all, of the second part of the list would have to be dropped. Can all of the characters in the first section be verified? ManoaChild 23:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Yep, all the second section would have to go. It's speculation. A lsit of characters that have autism from fiction is a potentially useful list (and would be a better page with a small line or two about said characters). A page of unsubstanciated guesses, that is not encyclopedic. Sabine's Sunbird 02:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm all for tossing the speculation section of the page, but I think a list of canonically autistic characters is useful and no more unreasonable than any other list. --Ambyr 23:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but delete the speculative part unless the speculation can be documented (e.g. if the speculation was covered in the media). Pburka 01:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, speculation and original research. Kaibabsquirrel 15:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Which part of the list do you think is speculation? They all seem verifiable to me. Factitious 23:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic is verifiable and encyclopedic. The objections above all refer to an earlier version of the list that was easily improvable, demonstrating that this was properly a matter for cleanup, not VfD. Factitious 23:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the current version. However, anon appears to intends to add his own speculation - should be watched - Skysmith 08:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article in its current state is useful. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This list is interesting. Brownman40 07:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting, and a worthy study, so far as the fiction actually confirms that the character is autistic and not simply implied nor fanon. - Gilgamesh 04:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dinger

Simply being a character on Sesame Street does not confer notability. This character appears to be present in very few episodes and in limited capacity. Delete or Merge to Sesame Street. -Soltak 19:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 19:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That's completely irrelevant to this discussion. There is absolutely no reason for a sub-sub-sub-supporting character to have their own article. -Soltak 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Since wikipiedia is not paper, there's no reason it shouldn't. Kappa 19:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Bravo, Wikipedia isn't paper. You know what else it isn't? A receptable for any useless garbage that pops into someone's head! -Soltak 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
          • But the point is valid. Notability is not written in the deletion policy guidelines. If we can't find a more objective reason to delete an article than notability, perhaps we should assume it may be notable to someone else. Mistercow 07:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Many things and people are notable to one people or a few people, but I think the key to notability here on Wikipedia for personalities is when something can be talked about in a random conversation with most people you know or just see on the street and they can note who they are. This obviously is still a little too broad for a personal policy, but it's a starting point. "Dinger" doesn't meet that qualification, he(it?) should be merged into the minor characters article. Also, is it just me, or has Kappa voted to keep in every vfd he's been in? I assume that the paper comment is on the possible limitlessness of Wikipedia since it has no specific spatial qualities. Otherwise, I wish you told me earlier because I tried to make Origami out of some articles, and it wasn't pretty ;-) Karmafist 19:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to a List of minor Sesame Street characters if anyone wants to bother. Otherwise, delete with extreme prejudice. FCYTravis 19:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand or merge --Tim Pope 19:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Wikipedia is not toilet paper, either. --Carnildo 20:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite. Dinger was the name of the band Andy Bell was in before Erasure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I like that. Could this be redirected to Andy Bell (singer) for the time being? - Lucky 6.9 00:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as written. The Dinger is about as significant to Sesame Street as Babu Bhat is to Seinfeld. ESkog 16:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sesame Street, or rewrite as a dab page if the Andy Bell (singer) connection can be verified (this name isn't mentioned in that article currently). Or simply Delete if no one wants to bother making the dab page, or if there is no consensus on where to redir. In any case do not keep in the present form. DES (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 20:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bionic Bunny

Simply being a character on Arthur does not confer notability, regardless of the prevalence of this character on the show. The show is notability, every character and plot device is not. Delete or Merge to Arthur (cartoon). -Soltak 19:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, prevalent character on major network show. Kappa 19:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I haven't watched the show in years but I know that Bionic Bunny isn't "prevalent." I also know that PBS, while extremely important, isn't a "major network." -Soltak 19:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry I misunderstood. Anyway keep, useful information for fans of the show. Kappa 19:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, I think this could be expanded. Keep. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Arthur. Even one of the most-well-known characters in the show, Buster Baxter, redirects to the article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Arthur. Being the father of two young children I've seen this show a lot. Al 20:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and Merge to Arthur (cartoon). Bionic Bunny is a pretty small part of the show, and he should have an overview there like the other characters. Eventually, the cast list and episode list could split off of the main article, but a character like Bionic Bunny doesn't deserve his own page, and we could merge this without losing any content.-LtNOWIS 20:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Change vote to Keep, since article has been expanded.-LtNOWIS 20:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or at the very least don't redirect to the cartoon. Bionic Bunny is also a character in the books, and even has his own spin-off (The Bionic Bunny Show, ISBN 0316109924) which predates the Arthur cartoon show by more than a decade. The Bionic Bunny Show was also made into an episode of Reading Rainbow. BB also has merchandise, such as a doll, and scores decently on Google (16,800 Google hits). Redirecting Bionic Bunny to the Arthur TV show would be like redirecting Bugs Bunny to Space Jam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • If the article is expanded to reflect how prevalent the Bionic Bunny character actually is I'll be happy to withdraw my vfd request. As the article currently stands, I wouldn't have known any of that about the books (and didn't!) without you saying something. -Soltak 21:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an insignificant subject, but compared to some other things we keep, this isn't that bad. BB definently a recurring character in the Arthurverse. ike9898 21:04, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Andrew Lenahan CanadianCaesar 22:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Almafeta 22:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Request Withdrawn following large-scale expansion by Starblind. Great job on the expansion, by the way :-) -Soltak 22:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you. It's a solid 12 paragraphs now. No hard feelings, of course, since the previous stub was mighty slim, and I fully understand why someone might nominate it for VfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, if it's necessary... Wow. Starblind, this is one of the reasons Wikipedia is great. Almafeta 21:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. There is some small support for merge; that is not something on which this discussion need reach a conclusion. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Honker

Simply being a character on Sesame Street does not confer notability. This character appears to be present in very few episodes and in limited capacity. Delete or Merge to Sesame Street. -Soltak 21:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Honkers actually appear in many many episodes (I remember seeing them when I was a kid and I saw a recent episode still featuring them). However to the best of my knowledge there really isn't much else to say about them beyond this one line. 23skidoo 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Sesame Street and redirect to nose. --Scimitar parley 16:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete minor characters. ESkog 16:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very minor character. --Carnildo 21:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge Brownman40 07:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Sesame Street characters are notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Honker

There's a completely another meaning for Honker. The page was rewritten and if it needs a redirection, please feel free to add a tag. --Yau 12:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matt McCormic

Main character in non-notable webcomic. DS 23:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per Dragon EdwinHJ | Talk 23:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability is established. Punkmorten 10:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meca-Zonic

Minor character in non-notable webcomic. Although the description "we can rebuild him! Make him faster, stronger, smarter -" "Actually, our budget's been cut. We can make him faster and stronger, but that's it" is funny, I'll admit. DS 23:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sage Deathwish

see Meca-Zonic. DS 23:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boss McCormic

see Matt McCormic, Meca-Zonic et al. DS 23:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn.  Grue  19:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:17, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paperwork Dan

A spinoff article of Burnt Face Man (see vfd). —Cryptic (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn spinoff of a nn thing. -Splash 01:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Punkmorten 12:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Bobby Hill (King of the Hill). -Splash 23:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Hill (Cartoon character in King of the Hill)

Fancruft, complete with more trivial trivia. Several Times 20:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to Bobby Hill (King of the Hill) which already exists. Deleting the content of either of those two articles would set a dangerous precedent because we have tons of articles on major characters of TV shows. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I was just coming to post the same vote as Zzyzx11. Merge and redirect. John Barleycorn 21:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Zzyzx11 -Soltak 21:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Bobby Hill (Short, sort of fat, cartoon character on the TV show King of the Hill who is the son of Hank Hill). Or, better yet, speedy redirect! Is there such a thing? There should be. -R. fiend 22:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biff hooper

Delete--Unencyclopedic and childish, also uncapitalized.--Zxcvbnm 20:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Malice Mort

Entirely non-notable. This "thing" is the extent of what I can find on this topic. Otherwise, I can't find any evidence of a manga called "Ninja vs. Samurai" on Google, though I do find a lot of forum posts about it. It's possible I've just never heard of it, but my fiancee, an avid manga reader, hasn't heard of it either... so here it is, nominated for deletion. I thank the Wikify project for pointing me in the direction of this page.

  • Unsigned nomination by User:FreelanceWizard CanadianCaesar 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable CanadianCaesar 23:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... on second thought I don't want to rely so much on Google. I'll just say, notability not established. CanadianCaesar 00:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I concur. --Howcheng 19:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - DavidWBrooks 14:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - whoever created it should have created (and sourced) a article on the manga first. JesseW 03:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this isn't an encyclopedia entry by any stretch of the imagination. Onesong 20:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE and DELETE. Relevant info already at Viktor Krum. Jinian 12:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. and Mrs. Krum

Extremely minor Harry Potter characters who are mentioned in about one paragraph and have no speaking lines. Article is full of assumptions ("They are supportive of their son") that are quite obvious but don't come out directly from the book. Any useful information could be merged with Viktor Krum, otherwise delete. ---Laur 10:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete Whats next, individual listings for Mr Krum and Mrs Krum? Allegrorondo 13:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, wikipedia's detailed coverage of Harry Potter is one of its strengths. Kappa 13:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • There's a big difference between "detailed coverage" and "ludicriously detailed trivia" -- and ludicriously detailed trivia is not encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 15:57, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless fancruft. Martg76 13:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Potter-cruft. --Calton | Talk 15:57, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a storehouse for ridiculous fictional minutae, regardless of the source's popularity. Lord Bob 17:55, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - origional research/non-canonical/fancruft Sirmob 18:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - however, the few relevant details that actually exist from the book could certainly be merged with Viktor Krum before or after the deletion... Sirmob 18:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with List of characters in the Harry Potter books or Viktor Krum. Pburka 00:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm a Harry Potter fanboy, but this is useless. Nandesuka 02:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of characters in the Harry Potter books and give these characters a brief mention there. The article is speculation or original research. Nonetheless, they have been present in book 4, so I don't support an outright deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, but perhaps to a list of minor characters in the Harry Potter books (akin to the list which exists for minor Star-Wars characters; and: couldn't we somehow link this to Ashlee Simpson? :) Lectonar 12:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and move to the extensive Wikibook on Harry Potter: Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter --Azertus 09:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into list of minor Harry Potter characters. --86.130.26.225 13:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Noir (TBE)

Even if an individual piece of fanfiction is notable enough to be on Wikipedia (currently undergoing debate here), a character from it certainly is not. Junkyard prince 01:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, reading that has made my eyes bleed. -Splash 01:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Totally agree with you guys. Was going to vfd it myself. - Hahnchen 01:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Beaten to it. RADICALBENDER★ 01:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete immediately before this scars someone. -- BD2412 talk 01:28, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Splash and BD2412. Delete as a public service. Hamster Sandwich 01:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's painful to even attempt to read --Dysepsion 05:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Ow. Mistercow 06:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete before it can cause any more damage... ahhhh!!! UniReb 07:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Really bad fanfiction Delete with extreme prejudice. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with a large hammer, please. Wow. nn. And painful. RasputinAXP 20:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fanfic. Xaa 23:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Reading Sherool's vote, it appears to be a keep which gives 2k-1d. Since no copyvio has been applied (and a quick Google doesn't turn it up), I'll just close this as a keep. -Splash 00:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmos (Transformers)

Non-notable, delete or merge Frenchman113 16:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, comprehensive coverage of fictional topics is one of wikipedia's strengths. Kappa 16:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looks like it might be a copy of Hasbro's blurb. Gazpacho 16:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, hmm yeah it does look a lot like the "bio" of him from the comics (not 100% sure, I only have the Norwegian versions -- somewhere). If it's not a copyvio I don't see any particular reason to delete this. Lots of transformers have seperate articles (although if someone wants to listify some of the minor characters I won't mind). Could do with some wikifying though. --Sherool 17:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 20:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hornbuckle

A character in the background of a Mortal Kombat stage. Wow. humblefool®Deletion Reform 05:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, part of the Mortal Combat universe, of interest to fans of the game. 06:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC) unsigned vote by Kappa
  • Keep, creator of the article; important to MK fans and the history of the game. 07:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mistercow 10:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the love of God, apple pie, and all that is pure and good, this ridiculous entry -- fancruft at best and more likely simply a bunch of made-up nonsense, attaching a name from one medium to a completely random picture in a videogame -- must be destroyed. Nandesuka 12:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Fatality Delete, crufty non-canon claptrap. Proto t c 14:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Annihilate, nn. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 15:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I have a fairly high fancruft tollerance, beeing something of a sci-fi fanatic myself, but this is just crazy, not to mention pure speculation, all that needs to be said about that stage is already in the Blaze article. Delete Image:Hornbuckle.jpg too. --Sherool 15:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete May be worth a reference in the main MK article, but not a separate article. Allegrorondo 16:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the love of Mike (or somebody). --FuriousFreddy 16:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page for Hornbuckle might as well be deleted. As the creator of this article, I simply combined the bits of information into the Blaze article, since most of the information was the same. The article Hornbuckle could just simply redirect to Blaze. 18:05, 8 August 2005 (EST)
  • Delete sub-trivial non-canon fancruft. --Carnildo 23:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Rip it's spine out, er, um, Delete fancruft Youngamerican 13:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Deletion_sorting_Fictional_characters_Closed_da34.html"