Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Fairly OddParents characters (2nd nomination)

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 as a valid WP:SPINOUT. ansh 666 08:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Fairly OddParents characters[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a single reliable source to reference a small portion of the article, the rest is just unsourced fancruft that makes this website look like a wikia. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per previous AfD and per WP:SIZE, since putting character information into the main article would be too unwieldy. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 16:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. Pure fancruft more fit for a Wikia. This information shouldn't be on Wikipedia in any capacity unless it is rewritten with proper sourcing._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Andros 1337. Also, I think if it were really more like Wikia, every major character (and probably a few minor characters) would have their own article. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 16:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there seems to be a general bias on Wikipedia against children's TV series in favor of adult TV shows, which is unfortunate. IMO any votes for delete should not count since they are likely to be biased. Yes, I know about WP:AGF. but it is pretty obvious there is a bias on Wikipedia against children's TV series. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 18:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You believe that Delete votes should not count because "they are likely to be biased"?!

You do realize that is as biased as it gets, don't you? -The Gnome (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because (a) the subject fails WP:PURPLIST, (b) Wikipedia is not Wikia, and (c) it is made up of red hot WP:OR. The lack of sources is not surprising; that's how it should be. Such lists along with the sections about plots of movies are all-you-can-eat opportunities for WP:OR aficionados. -The Gnome (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TWO sources in TWELVE years (and they might as well not be; one is a creator's ineligible Twitter post, the other in the opening paragraph says '[Warning: this post contains dangerous levels of sarcasm!] The excruciating wait is over - last week, Nickelodeon gave in to the demands of the arthouse film community and green-lit a live-action TV movie adaptation of its hit cartoon, The Fairly Oddparents', so it doesn't attempt to be serious). I'm tired of giving good faith and hope that a bunch of editors who can't even maintain a semblance of a WikiProject will actually maintain this article sanely and source their inanity at the most base level. And @Andros 1337:, that 'bias...against children's TV series' is exhaustion with editors who don't want to put effort into any sourcing; if the MMA and pro wrestling communities were able to get their acts together, I still hold out some hope the kid's TV editors who aren't reverting vandalism and cruft regularly eventually will. But in twelve years, we need to take out the trash if we keep piling on; this is literal hoarding in article form. Nate • (chatter) 22:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs inline citations, and it should be cut down to just the primary and main supporting characters. See List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters as a model. Newslinger (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed all of the characters from the "Other" section, which considerably reduced the article length. I've also added a {{condense}} tag. Newslinger (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT / merge back to main article retaining only the main characters. That can be sourced by press releases, encyclopedia of television shows / cartoons books, website from years ago. I've tagged this article for in-universe/refimprove for years and nothing's really improved especially when most of the edits have been attempts to try to move Vicky off the main character list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable shows always have a character list article when all the valid information won't fit in the main article. Dream Focus 19:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:Deletion is not cleanup. JDDJS (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I'm sympathetic to the TNT argument. When there are dozens of pages about various media of a show, it's generally reasonable to have a page on the characters; the episodes of the show are an implicit reference for the content. The main article is also better without long character descriptions and minor characters on it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on this taking too much room up in the main article. Also, I understand the WP:OR and sourcing arguments, but those seem to be more relevant when we don't have many "informed" eyeballs focused on verifying content. This isn't obscure chemical variations of plant enzymes - it's a show that every fan will be able to quickly spot errors and fix them, with or without proper sourcing. (Heck - I'd just source with the episode name, whether it can be viewed online or not). That's the beauty of crowdsourcing. I know this position isn't supported by any formal policy and the purists will be angry, but if it works and brings enjoyment to some readers, why not just let it go? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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