Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penny Sanchez

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 keep. Flowerparty■ 22:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penny Sanchez

Cartoon character from a barely-notable TV show. This article can barely be more then a stub and it's content would be better off merged into the main ChalkZone article. Note: This was previously prodded. The prod was removed to turn the page into a redirect. The redirect has disappeared and the article has reappeared. ---J.Smith 06:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, important character on the show. Royboycrashfan 06:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into ChalkZone, or failing that, just delete. No matter how important this character is on the show, the show itself isn't high-profile enough to warrent more than one article. --Aquillion 09:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, reluctantly as I think Wikipedia would be better off without articles on TV show characters, but precedent seems to be to keep them, even if not very notable. She appears to be an important character (I haven't seen the show), the other characters have their own articles and there is too much to merge without an extreme reduction in content. -- Kjkolb 10:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is one of the better Category:ChalkZone characters articles, but some of the other smaller ones could be merged to a list of characters article -- Astrokey44|talk 12:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Ned Wilbury 14:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think a cartoon character that has no life outside of it's cartoon should have it's own article. Bart Simpson (and the like) are different because they have a life outside of "The Simpsons". Penny Sanchez does not. ---J.Smith 18:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You think so? Then let's nominate Sandy Cheeks for deletion, too.

Royboycrashfan 22:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to flood the process. But, since you mention it, I'll start a mass-delete/merge on AFD tonight when I get home. ---J.Smith 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Not a bad idea. It doesn't have any sources (the talk page has skepticism about the factuality of some of the items, actually), nor does it assert the notability of the subject. But that article is at least different in that it is a spin off of an article too long to accomodate it, the SpongeBob SquarePants character guide, which was a spin off of an article too long to accomodate it SpongeBob SquarePants. That isn't true of ChalkZone. Шизомби 23:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as above. I'm in complete agreement with J.Smith's comment, as well. Microtonal 20:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per J.Smith. JoshuaZ 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge all ChalkZone characters to ChalkZone per above and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). CZ is a fairly short article, and there's no reason why it can't accomodate descriptions of all the characters there. Never heard of the show before, myself. Шизомби 22:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. How can a TV show on a major TV network be borderline notable? --Rory096 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: this isn't about the TV show. This is about a character on it. ---J.Smith 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. But the nomination's reason was that the TV show wasn't notable. --Rory096 00:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Reread the nom, that's not what was said - the TV show was "barely-notable", the character article could "barely be more than a stub," and the nominator thought a merge was appropriate. I'm guessing AfD was undertaken because doing a merge without one might have been controversial among the show's fans, but I don't know. Not every TV show on a major network is notable, and those that are will differ in how notable they are. Шизомби 01:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The nom still insinuated that since the TV show was barely notable, a character on it wasn't. I disagree that the article can only be barely more than a stub, look at Sandy Cheeks for example, as Royboycrashfan pointed out. Hell, it's longer than most articles right now. --Rory096 02:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Please understand my issue here... I think that a character that has no life outside of the context of it's TV show shouldn't have it's own article. You keep mentioning that other character... I think it should be merged too. I wanted to see how this played out before I went to delete/merge the others. ---J.Smith 07:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The whole point of having a reference like the Wikipedia is to find information about something you may never have heard of. No one needs a reference they already have memorized.Don Jaime 08 Mar 2006

Comment You can add your sig by adding four tildes ~~~~ after your post. Шизомби 07:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The content isn't going to be deleted. It will be condensed and then merged. It will then create a more comprehensive article and in the end a better resource. ---J.Smith 07:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I happen to be the one who wrote the article as well as uploaded the picture, and I think I did a good job with it, so I see no reason to delete it. Besides, Teamo Supremo wasn't notable enough either, but I don't see the pages I wrote for its characters being listed for deletion. - Nintendo Maximus

Noone has said to delete the content. Please re-read the nom. Delete isn't an option. What is happening to other articles is beside the point. However, there is a policy about this and the policy sais these should be merged. ---J.Smith 00:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Which policy is that? --Rory096 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). If you prune out the redundent/unverifiable/unimportant info fromt he artical, it would be down to a paragraph and would fit very nicely in the main artical or in a List of ChalkZone Characters (or some such). ---J.Smith 08:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandy Cheeks and why it's a bad example:

Regarding Sandy Cheeks: This character is a bad example. I looked it up and realised it was a sponge-bob character. It has a life outside of the TV show. Merchandising, a movie, appearances in video games, etc. ---J.Smith 08:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

None of that is noted in the article, however, and also my comment above: it doesn't have any sources, and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Шизомби 08:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well true about that... but that has nothing to do with my point. Those are arguments to be made in an AFD/Penny. My point is that the argument can be made (even if the article is poorly written) ---J.Smith 08:53, 8 March 2006 (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.