Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch (4th 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch[edit]

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

Fancruft that has somehow survived 3 previous AFDs. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTPLOT as a huge, plot-only article. The place for this sort of thing is Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Northamerica1000. Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article has been around for a very long time, and contains accurate information about the characters from the Lilo and Stitch series. All fan-made/false info is removed as quickly as possible. I see no reason for this character list article to be deleted. Gogo Dodo and I, and quite a few other helpful users, have been doing our best to keep fan-opinion out of this article, clean it up regularly, and to make sure it contains only accurate information on the series. This character page is indeed accurate to the show, unlike the similar but terribly unprofessional and inaccurate "Lilo and Stitch Wikia" fan-site's Experiment page (where fans insert completely false, inaccurate, downright made-up information about these characters). I've been helping out on this Wikipedia page for more than a year now, striving to keep it an accurate character list for the Lilo and Stitch cartoon series, and I honestly don't see how this article is worse than any other cartoon series' "character list" article on Wikipedia. If you're going to delete this page, you might as well delete every character list article for every cartoon/TV/movie series that has an article on Wikipedia. Just an example: have you seen all the fan rubbish on the iCarly character article? Look at any "character list" on Wikipedia -- they're all the same; but at least this one is definitely well-organized, cared-for, and accurate. If this article is going to be picked on for the reasons stated above (e.g. WP:NOTPLOT), Wikipedia might as well not allow character list articles at all. This list is accurate, and it is a good resource for fans of this well-known series. Keep it. (Please also see Gogo Dodo's previous comments regarding this list on the previous deletion nominations; I agree 100%.) Plasma Phantom (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste the Wikipedia article over the one on the Wikia site, then. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to KATMAKROFAN: I've already tried that a year ago. The admin of the "Lilo and Stitch Wikia" is a stubborn tyrant who adamantly refuses to let anyone input accurate information on the Experiments on his Wikia. He makes up downright false information (fan-fiction, and even fan-art, on Experiments that have not even been revealed in the series yet), and has been questioned many times about this by others who see the errors and wish to improve the Wikia. To make matters worse, he blocks anyone who tries to improve the Wikia with accurate facts, and prefers to keep the Wikia infested with fan-fiction. As a matter of fact, his Wikia is confusing a lot of fans, who, from my observation, are coming over here and inputting the same false info (word for word) from the Lilo and Stitch Wikia into Wikipedia's Experiment list page (which is removed as soon as possible by me, Gogo Dodo, and others, who are trying to keep the fan garbage out of the page). The Lilo and Stitch Wikia is a joke, and cannot be fixed, especially seeing as the admin is so cruel and stubborn. Why don't you try removing all the fan junk from that Wikia yourself, replace it with the info here, and try reasoning with the admin -- and you'll get ignored and blocked by him just like I did a year ago. It would be a shame for this list to be deleted, because then the only source would be that trash Lilo and Stitch fanon Wikia. Plasma Phantom (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with KATMAKROFAN on this. This article seems more appropriate for a Wikia site than wikipeida. I disagree with @Plasma Phantom:'s point that "Wikipedia might as well not allow character list articles at all." as there are plenty of character lists on Wikipedia. Two examples that I can think of right away are Characters of Carnivàle and Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, which are both featured articles. The primary difference between those two articles and this one is that this article does not cite any reliable, secondary sources. A character list is definitely acceptable on here as long as it passes notability standards. I apologize for your negative experience on a fan wikia, as I can tell a lot of work has been put into this list and it is well-written, but it is still inappropriate for Wikipedia I'm afraid to say. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Aoba47: Well, it's a shame that this cartoon (Lilo and Stitch: The Series) is rather obscure, so these ever so crucial "cite notes" from "secondary sources" on the Experiment characters are difficult to find thanks to Disney not making this needed information available to cite. If you are familiar with the series, you know the information listed here is true and reliable. But if Wikipedia articles on character lists are required to have little cite notes on everything, then it's a very sad thing that this article is being attacked over and over (for the fourth time). It was decided three times already, after being nominated for deletion by others throughout the years, that this article should be kept. I guess some nit-pickers here just can't seem to accept the "keep" consensus of the past three nominations. I read somewhere in the Wikipedia deletion guides that an article shouldn't be nominated repeatedly after the consensus after at least 3 nominations was "Keep". But if the "cites" and "sources" are absolutely necessary, I wash my hands of this and shall move on, no matter how the consensus of this excessive fourth deletion nomination turns out. I still insist on keeping it for the reasons Gogo Dodo and WPA have mentioned. Plasma Phantom (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Plasma Phantom: I was merely explaining my rationale behind my delete vote, and providing feedback on your comments about the status of character lists on Wikipedia. I apologize if I offended you in any way, shape, or form, as that was not my intention. I was merely attempting to help with the discussion here. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as that breaks down Wikipedia's general notability guidelines in a very easy-to-follow manner, especially with how notability is demonstrated through "significant coverage in independent secondary sources about the fictional element". Again, I am just trying to help with the discussion here, and I do not mean to offend you. You can choose to ignore this message, but I thought I might as well expand on the point of view. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article covers a major aspect of the Lilo & Stitch franchise that has been around since the production of the original film. They play a significant role to the events of the franchise's films, television series, and other related works, the context of the main theme of ohana, and how they have affected the franchise's main characters (e.g. Jumba being their creator and getting imprisoned because of that fact, Lilo's life changing drastically after meeting the experiments, Stitch being an experiment himself). To delete this article would remove much information pertaining to the franchise's works on their articles here; such a deletion would be akin to say, the deletion of the Lists of Pokémon. Only having the experiments mentioned on the List of Lilo & Stitch characters would not be sufficient. To quote the aforementioned Gogo Dodo (who has been absent from Wikipedia for a month now) from their comments on prior nominations:

I'll more or less repeat what I said two years ago: The television series episode plots center specifically around this list of experiments, so removing the page will remove a large chunk of information pertaining to the show. The list is different than the List of Lilo & Stitch: The Series episodes as the episode list contains airdates and shorter experiment appearance lists. As for the claim of fancruft, I have strived long and hard to specifically keep it free of speculative list cruft (though I admit that I'm getting rather tired of doing so). Unfortunately, Disney made maintaining the list extremely difficult when they decided it would be fun to list the name of every experiment at the end of the last movie (Leroy & Stitch). So the names are available, but unless Disney produces more cartoons, the descriptions will have to remain blank as no information is available. All the information is from the shows or movies and speculative descriptions are removed almost immediately. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the aforementioned possible reason for deletion (WP:NOTPLOT), I have been making a concerted effort to find reliable sources about the conceptualization and development of the experiments throughout the franchise, especially with regards to Lilo & Stitch: The Series where they are of major focus. Admittedly, such information have been hard to find and rather scarce. Prior to this article's current nomination on October 1, I asked on the talk page about one possible source I found and whether or not it is acceptable, but I have not received any response so far; this recent nomination not helping matters. Still, I am doing my effort (alongside Plasma Phantom and the currently-absent Gogo Dodo, among other helpful users) to improve the page wherever possible while keeping it free of false and made-up information from more overly-passionate fans. I intend to continue searching for accurate information about them regardless of what happens to the page, since finding any reliable sources about their production would still be beneficial to understanding both the franchise and the characters. –WPA (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not established, so an article is not necessary. TTN (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party reliable sources, which makes it an automatic failure of WP:V, let alone WP:N. If even the "keep" side admits that reliable sources are lacking, then that should be an indication that such content is better suited to a fan wiki. Sandstein 10:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Largely unsourced fancruft that does not establish notability. While some of the individual Experiments listed here may have independent notability, they are already sufficiently covered in the List of Lilo & Stitch characters article. The rest of this massive list is just trivial information that has no third party sources backing up why they, as a group, are notable. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- excessive in-universe detail, aka fancruft. No secondary sources have been presented at this AfD to compel keeping this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolutely nothing significant or substantial apart from its own story connections, and therefore because we are not Wikia, it's not improvable or acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2016 (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.