Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Bodgers


 * 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. Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Bodgers
Appears to fail Vanity (as seen in this talk page edit and page creation history), Verifiability and Notability. CovenantD 15:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fictional superhero who doesn't appear in a published work. Wikipedia is WP:NOT for things made up in school one day. Recury 16:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, links have been added to prove that the character does exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.227.148 (talk • contribs)
 * That still doesn't address the vanity and notability issues. CovenantD 17:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep,Editted some areas that may conflict with vanity issues. User:Crablogger
 * Comment, this is the user who created the article and claims to have created the character. Recury 16:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did create the character, and since I have posted this article on Wikipedia, people have always been giving me a hard time. The last time, somebody wanted it deleted because it was "stupid". I have already rectified it no fewer than eight times to get it to fit Wikipedia standards, and I'd be very much obliged if I wasn't always the scapegoat in everything. User:Crablogger 6:59, 17 July 2006 (GMT)
 * No one is scapegoating you. Editing an article on a character you created is a violation of a Wikipedia standard itself (the vanity guideline mentioned above). This article also doesn't cite any outside sources other than the stories themselves. If no other sources exist, then it violates the verifiability policy mentioned above. Has it occurred to you that maybe your character just shouldn't have an article? It isn't as if Wikipedia has a ton of articles on fan fiction characters. Recury 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that Wikipedia hasn't many fanfiction characters, but just because Chuck Bodgers exists in fanfiction does not mean that he is a fanfiction character himself. I have written other stories in which he appears solo, as well as in my own spin-off science-fiction series Dash Daring and the Starchasers. I think it unfair that I give up most of my time writing such a thing, and the largest internet encyclopedia in existence refuses to recognize the characters' existence due to a violation in its' rules and regulations. As much as I respect these rules, I think it a little unfair how my work should be put under pressure in such a situation. User:Crablogger 7:24 18 July 2006 (GMT)
 * Are you sure about "pressure"? It could just be that you didn't know a lot of Wikipedias' rules when you created the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.227.148 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per nom. 92 distinct Ghits, which includes a few mirrors and USENET archives.  This total may be somewhat fluffed since it seems there was a BBC cartoon character of the same name (which User:Crablogger seems to indicate his creation is taken from).  No notability stated or implied, in particular no third-party non-trivial articles about the character.  The BBC site doesn't list the cartoon at this point.  Please note I do not dispute the character exists, that is not the issue.  In fact, if the character is based on the BBC cartoon, there maybe copyvio issues.  I request wiser heads cogitate on the last point, thanks.  Tychocat 13:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the lot of them. Any article which starts "...particularly at the website, The Bucky O' Hare Fanfiction..." doesn't have a frog's leg to stand on.  And links to its own fanfic website do not make it notable.  -- MrDolomite | Talk 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I give up. If we can't come to some agreement over it, then I don't see the point in carrying on this arguement. As long as we agree that the character does exist, but the information is too sketchy for an article, then I am satisfied with that. User:Crablogger 7:21, 19 July 2006 (GMT)
 * 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.