Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional characters

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete nothing to merge and not a useful redirect. W.marsh 19:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Redwall Series Villains

List of Redwall Series Villains (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Listcruft, entirely unnescesary, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of villains (2nd nomination), where it looks like list of villains is getting deleted, never mind this. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 22:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Redwall. Tarret 23:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to List of species in Redwall which though I am doubtful about the title, does cover this subject much more extensively. Mister.Manticore 02:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of species in Redwall#Bad creatures. Nothing to merge. Eluchil404 10:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - just a duplication of effort by someone who is probably new to Wikipedia. Hatch68 19:08, 19 January 2007 (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 was No consensus. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy (King Kong)

Jimmy_(King_Kong) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- (View AfD)

I think it should be deleted or merged into one article, since the Jack Dawson and Rose Dewitt Bukater articles got merged into a list. Superior1 05:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere unless there is evidence of Jimmy being notable outside of King Kong. GassyGuy 05:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there's a difference. Jack and Rose only appeared in one movie, this guy, according to the article, appeared in the original and the remake and various merchandise. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Uh yeah in the 33 one he had a non speaking role. Not notable. Also, he isn't a main character like Jack and Rose, and doesn't even appear in the last 40 minutes of the movie. Superior1 05:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works...." King Kong obviously meets that guideline, but would Jimmy? I highly doubt you'll find him discussed as the subject rather than King Kong being the subject. GassyGuy 04:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That rule is too oppressive if enforced to the absolute. It's a subarticle of the King Kong movies, and appearing in both, the character bio doesn't really belong in either. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep even if he isn't in the end, that does not mean he is not important. Rhino131 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) which says "Major characters in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." First this is not a major character and second this article does not provide encyclopedic treatment that would merit a separate article. --maclean 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to King Kong (2005 film). Normally I'd say merge into an article like List of King Kong characters but there doesn't appear to be one. Eluchil404 09:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I had made one called List of characters in King Kong (2005), but it got merged into the main article. Superior1 20:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 05:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable in and of itself, unimportant to parent movie article Avi 05:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There was a list of characters in King Kong (2005) here: [1] but it was (hastily) merged to the main article after a single comment on the discussion page. And the main article on the film simply lists the cast--no list was merged. I would suggest bringing back the characters list, but since there are two versions of the film--and since most of the characters appear in both versions--I don't know...maybe a (non-specific) "list of King Kong characters"? Wavy G 05:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not an important and notable character in both films. Terence Ong 15:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect. He was a somewhat notable character in the movie, but at least redirect. 11kowrom 00:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR, non-notable. /Blaxthos 08:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 19:39, 29 January 2007 (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 was Merge to Harad. Nishkid64 02:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tribelands of Haradwaith

Tribelands of Haradwaith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

The names Kârna, Badharkân, Dalamyr, Hidâr, Nâfarat, Dhâran-sar, Abrakân, and Gadîrkarn are not from Tolkien's works. For actual stuff he wrote about this see Harad and Haradrim. Google searches show that they apparently come from wargaming (The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game?) or other games, and thus are just forms of fan fiction (I have nothing against it myself, but just don't think it's canonical). Delete article, and possibly merge info with relevant articles. Uthanc 00:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Harad if cited, Delete otherwise. We have the ICE names of the Nazgûl in the main article - I suspect these are ICE names as well. Tevildo 03:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete I believe that some items may be merged with the article on Harad, but the non-canonical items should be either noted as such or deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roaddawg (talk • contribs) 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC).
• Merge/Delete per above, particularly as this does not appear to come from Tolkien to begin with.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 10:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with whatever book it appears in. Too narrow scope to have its own article. No context - I actually thought it was real until I read the article and saw the stub type. JIP | Talk 15:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge into The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game and/or Harad where appropriate. Uthanc's assumptions are correct: they form part of the Games Workshop wargaming products, and are not canonical. More to the point, the context is not large enough to warrant its own article. --Grimhelm 17:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge where appropriate. Probably the strategy game unless someone can find a reference in one of Tolkien's writings. Irongargoyle 18:55, 14 January 2007 (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 was Delete per non-notable and indiscriminant nature . HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of villains, inventions and pets in Codename: Kids Next Door

List of villains, inventions and pets in Codename: Kids Next Door (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Delete - nominated once before, results no consensus. An indiscriminate list of non-notable, apparently mostly single appearance items. Three months since the last AfD and the list has only gotten cruftier. Otto4711 22:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Contents would not be appropriate as individual articles, but as an aspect of an existing show that is notable, description of them is quite valid content on Wikipedia. Complaints about cruftiness indicate a need for clean-up, not deletion. In fact, that is language I would avoid in an AfD. Can you use different, less offensive language instead? Mister.Manticore 02:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't find "cruft" offensive in the slightest. If you object to "cruft," then go with "indisciminate list of non-notable, apparently mostly single appearance items." Not everything that appears on a television screen is notable, even if it appears on-screen during a notable program. Otto4711 02:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't find use of the term cruft offensive, you used it. However, I find it offensive, and I ask you to respect that feeling. It's derogatory and should be avoided. Is there some reason you couldn't have used some more neutral language instead? Mister.Manticore 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the subject at hand, since these things are hallmarks of the series, I can't understand deleting them. These things are often intrinsic to the plot of the episode they are in, not just minor things like gas stations. It's clear to me that if you're writing an article about the episode these things are in, you'd include them, so I have no problem with it being presented in this other format. So, I have to ask, are you familiar with this show? Because it seems to me that deleting this would be akin to deleting an article listing aliens in Star Trek, or places Sam Beckett jumped to in Quantum Leap. Mister.Manticore 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I very well might vote to delete such articles depending on how I felt after reviewing them. I would definitely vote to delete an indiscriminate list of one-off ST aliens and pets and I'd vote to delete a list of, say, one-off outfits, cars and siblings-of-leaped-into people from QL. Otto4711 14:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC

I wouldn't, because AFD is not a vote. I also wouldn't argue such, as that kind of list would be highly informative about the show. Personally, I wish List of Quantum Leap characters had a description of the leapees instead of just names. I'm glad List of Star Trek races does. And perhaps you should review them, and consider this list in that context. Now I don't think every car in QL should get an article. I can't think of any car that would even warrant a description. In KND the vehicles do matter though, a lot. Again, are you familiar with this show? Mister.Manticore 16:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear god, are you really going to get all Peter Pedantic because I said "vote"? I know AfD isn't a vote and you know as well as I do that any number of people refer to the process casually as voting. And as I've been trying to explain, my objection to this list is that it is indiscriminate. It lists villains AND inventions AND pets indiscriminately, and it lists items which appear in a single episode and are otherwise completely lacking in notability either within or outside the series. I would not object to a list of Star Trek aliens. I would object to an indisctiminate list of ST aliens AND pets AND whatever, and I would object to an indiscriminate list of QT outfits AND cars AND siblings. If the individual villains are notable, make a list of villains. If the individual pets are notable, make a list of pets. If the individual members of this list aren't notable then slapping them all together on a list doesn't make them notable. Note them in articles for the episodes if they exist or get rid of them. Otto4711 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did I offend you by noting that an AFD is not a vote? I didn't mean to do so. I've had people chide me for the same mistake. I realize that it is one, but I try to resist being irritated by having my mistakes pointed out. It is hard though, so I understand if you were offended. My bad. Mister.Manticore 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Back to the article, this isn't an indiscriminate list, not in general, as the episodes of Codename: Kids Next Door are about these very things. I think the problem is, you're confused by the list title, which I can see is misleading. That may be part of the problem. I should have realized this sooner, my bad. What this is, is a list of the things used by the bad guys in the show. I'm not sure of a better title, but I do agree it needs one. However, given the nature of the show, I can understand why a list might be important. But it is not as much like the example you gave of ST lists and QL lists. There's actually a pretty solid connection there, but if you aren't familiar with the show, you might not recognize it.

Which leads to me repating my question though, are you familiar with this show? I've asked several times, but I can't find a response by you on it. Mister.Manticore 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.
• Delete. The criteria for notability is universal, not relative to the issue it pertains to. For instance, just because 1. Quantum leap is notable and 2. The description of leapees in Quantum leap is important to the show Quantum leap, does not mean that a description of leapees in Quantum leap is notable. Same goes with local issues- if an issue is only notable to a particular subset of people, it doesn't meet the notability criteria. Although "Codename: Kids Next Door" may be a notable television show, that doesn't imply that every aspect of the show is notable. johnpseudo 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about every aspect of the show, but a particular aspect of it that is as definitive as Star Trek's Aliens or Quantum Leap's leapees. I have to ask, are you familiar with this show at all? Mister.Manticore 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Maybe the defenders can transform part of it to go into the main article, but not notable as is. highlunder 22:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, 99% of them have only been used in a single episode so they're clearly not important enough, even within the fictional universe, for an article on Wikipedia to document every single one of them. Axem Titanium 05:53, 14 January 2007 (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.