Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy)

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 keep. WjBscribe 02:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy)

Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This page duplicates material already covered in List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. It is full of fancruft, and was created to try and circumvent the will of the editing community at the above mentioned article, who have resisted attempts to create these pages. -- Elaich 17:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as the characters are still notable enough to have seperate pages.--Piemanmoo 17:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As one of the title characters I think he would be notable enough for his own article. However it probably does need some work.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 18:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It only needs a cleaup and some extending. The Prince of Darkness 18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete These characters do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and as such, do not deserve separate pages. -- 71.138.27.12 01:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per WP:FICT, main characters are notable enough to be spun out of a general list. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I mean, c'mon. Jimmy Neutron has one. Spongebob Squarepants has one. Why not Ed?--989 RVD 23:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) 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." Such is not the case with Ed, Edd and Eddy. The three characters are covered quite well on the List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. They are not too long, and there is not enough substance to justify separate pages. As I mentioned at the top, the will of the community, as discussed on the talk page, is to keep things as they are. These pages were created in 2005 by a particularly disruptive editor, and have been kept alive by others who do not wish to accept the will of the community, at the same time refusing to work with the community. We will speedily delete any links to these page in the article anyway, so there is no reason for them to exist. They are just traps for fancruft. -- Elaich 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm kind of going to stay neutral on whether the article should be kept or not. After all, it does comply with most of WP:FICT, but it could use a bit of work (probably with tone, trivia, and in-universe perspective). On the other hand, if I wanted the admin to delete the article, much of the editors (especially Elaich and the IP who keeps experimenting with Linux) who edit List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy would be happy about it. There would be less "fancruft traps."

For those who have rarely edited or not edited Ed, Edd n Eddy-related articles at all, please note that the Ed, Edd n Eddy for much of its history has had serious problems with other editors adding cruft to the page. The problem can be traced back as far as November 2005, but I could be wrong about that. Also look at this version of the article. Some of the content in there, such as, "In one episode, we see Ed's mothers hand (which looks really big also) drag Ed away due to his bad report card (straight F's). In another episode, Ed had a dream with his mother having Jonny's face," would have been reverted if it was even added back today because it would violate the "rules" on Talk:List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. If you read the Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy archives (even the first one), you would also find that editors have been facing problems with other editors adding fancruft or irrelevent information. The page was repeatedly reported to WP:RFPP, but the requests were declined. This situation got so bad, that finally, an admin decided to protect the page due to content disputes.

I have a question I want to ask about you, Elaich. Do you have any reasoning for calling User:Wack'd About Wiki a disruptive editor? Any diffs or anything to back up that claim? I think I've heard the editor state that he/she used to be disruptive, but changed as he/she started to contribute to Wikipedia more (or something along the lines of that), but I don't remember what page it was. Now here's some advice for you: You did not follow the instructions at WP:AFD. You did not use the text that the page gave you. I'm referring to the one that enables you to put your reason for why you wanted the article to be deleted and that allows you to add a deletion category. You also didn't list the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 14. You did not follow instructions for nominating multiple articles that are related to this one (you nominated the other Eds, yet gave them separate AFD's).

Finally, you mentioned on my talk page to "vote" here. Are you aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy? If not, you should read it. It's very useful. Squirepants101 04:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I just discovered that User:71.138.27.12 (the IP who keeps experimenting with Linux. Mentioned above) informed User:DietLimeCola with the exact same message User:Elaich gave to me seven minutes earlier. Is this just a coincidence or is it a cause for concern? I believe it's just mere coincidence. Squirepants101 04:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You didn't look back far enough. This page was created by Bobber1. And you are correct about the coincidence. Why would I be logged in when I posted on your talk page, and not logged in 7 minutes later? Also, I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that the decision to ultimately delete or not will be made by an administrator. However, isn't expressing your opinion on this page whether to "keep" or "delete" a vote? I vote to keep it. Or, I vote to delete it. That's the context of "vote" that I intended. - Elaich 08:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If the characters from e.g. Camp Lazlo have separate articles, I definately think that at least the main characters from Ed, Edd n Eddy deserve theirs. The Prince of Darkness 08:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Camp Lazlo has a list of characters page just like EEnE. -- Elaich 19:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, however, there are pages of the main characters: Lazlo, Raj and Clam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Prince of Darkness (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

And they all look like the same kind of pages that are being discussed here. The characters do not meet notability guidelines, so the separate pages were created to try and fly "under the radar" and not receive the scrutiny of regular editors. They are all full of fancruft, and are only linked to at the bottom of the list of characters page, where nobody is likely to pay much attention. I'm not buying it. The only reason these pages exist is because nobody has brought them to light yet. I see them as attempts to create "fan pages" on Wikipedia where fan pages are not tolerated. -- Elaich 22:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Afd is not the place to take content disputes and it's not for demanding article cleanup (I know, I've listed articles before with the comment "article is poorly written" but in this case there's a whole explanation about the dispute. Nardman1 13:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Characters don't meet notability guidelines; bio information on List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy is sufficient; readers would be forced to click on yet another link to read information. -- 172.190.29.107 17:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Perfectly fine article, meets notability guidelines. Matthew 07:22, 16 April 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.