Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters


 * 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. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters

 * — (View AfD)

This page is redundant and lists things that already have their own articles. It creates more hassle and the template is already a navigational tool. This was discussed a little here too. Dylan0513 01:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Redundancy is not a good reason for deletion, nor is more hassle. A template only serves to navigate by name, but does not provide the potential informative content of this list.  For example, there are many television shows and other fictional works with lists of characters, such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Lost, The West Wing and The Wire.  Now this page is fairly new, so it's not as good as any of those pages, it needs some real clean-up to bring it up to snuff.  But deleted?  I can't understand why, though I am concerned that this is a bad faith nomination, and should be looked at very carefully.   FrozenPurpleCube 01:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And in the interests of fair disclosure, I will say I was involved in that prior discussion, and have tried to work to improve this page. I don't think I'm biased though.  But then, maybe I wouldn't... FrozenPurpleCube 01:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per FrozenPurpleCube - useful. Why do we need to delete this? This might be useful if in case Wikipedia readers get confused or want to get a quick detail. The nomination could be a bad faith nomination; look very carefully. Big  top  01:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Regardless of your opinion on the subject, throwing around accusations of bad faith here is uncalled for. I'd really strongly suggest you provide some evidence when making such an accusation.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Well written, well layed out, and well researched. Gan fon  02:16an, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Well researched? It was copied and pasted from data already on other pages! If it was well "researched" there would be stuff on there that needed researched or there would be more detail. Well layed out is bull too because currently it looks like a crappy list of links. I don't know if you are a SOCK or paid by someone to come on here and just give a support vote but I ask whoever reviews this to strick this vote from the decree. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 10:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is definitely not a bad faith nomination. The article serves no purpose at all and just restates what other articles say. Another article to keep track of and one that was made before discussing and was pretty much discussed in favor of deleting before here and here. -Dylan0513 03:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You do realize that there is an intent to revise and clean-up this page as soon as this discussion is resolved, and that if you find keeping track of this page burdensome, there is no obligation for you to worry about it? Nor do I concur with your description of the consensus that developed through the prior discussion.  FrozenPurpleCube 07:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not meant to be a direct criticism of Bigtop, but it seems to me that people are awfully quick to make accusations of bad faith when people nominate articles of this type for deletion - lists of fictional star trek weapons, articles about each and every character ever mentioned in a particular comic book, etc. Is it really difficult to understand that some editors honestly don't believe this stuff to be encyclopedic?-- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 03:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you misunderstood the problem, which is that there is a dispute over the existence of this page, versus the existence of other pages, and how to handle the subject. And since there has been a somewhat substantial disconnect in the discussion of it, well, I'm rather troubled by this nomination. FrozenPurpleCube 07:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it's well written, and it does seem to be useful. -- Tohru  Honda Sign here! 07:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - List of characters should be well catered for in the main series article. - fchd 07:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So, just to be clear, are you also advocating the deletion of List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters, List of Avatar: The Last Airbender minor secondary characters, and List of Avatar: The Last Airbender creatures? FrozenPurpleCube 08:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've not looked at those other articles, but if the content would be better handled on the main series article (or maybe not at all in the case of a list of minor secondary characters!), I would !vote Delete at an AfD for those as well. However, this AfD only relates to a single article at the moment. - fchd 11:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, now that you've been made aware of those pages, perhaps you could share your opinion on them, since their existence is why this page is being nominated for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 17:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * After looking at them, I'd delete the lot of them. The single article for the series is plenty. - fchd 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're nuts. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this nomination is for this article alone. None of the article will go nor should they. Avatar is one of the most viewed pages on all of wikipedia and you want to make it one article? -Dylan0513 20:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it should be one article. I don't see what these lists offer extra. You disagree, fair enough. I don't have any grudge to grind here, I feel the same about most of the "List of character" type articles for TV shows/films/video games etc. As an aside, how do you know "Avatar is one of the most viewed pages on all of wikipedia", and which Avatar page? - fchd 20:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The most viewed lists and it's the main page. We've gotten grief in the FA nomination on how the article is too long as it is. It would probably be 5 times it's size if none of the other articles were there. -Dylan0513 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Avatar is actually the 78th most viewed page. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Semi-Delete - This information is presented not only on the Avatar: The Last Airbender main page but it's also presented at the bottom of every Avatar page that carries Template:Avatar. All information not listed on the main page each has it's own main page, also listed on Template:Avatar. All these names are linked to multiple times within the episode articles as well. It's just a list with links to no more than 10 different pages. The bottom half links ALL links to Minor Secondary Characters but then goes to that same character. That page itself has a key that is identicle to the bottom half of this page. The only reason I put semi-delete is because if a person wants to look up, say, Aunt Wu, this page tells them that she is in the Minor article. But then again, had they clicked the Major characters page first, not found her, the next logical thing is to go to minor. In this situation though, it still required exactly two pages before she is found. It either needs to be deleted or worked into a way where there is actually a use for it's existance. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 10:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - information is alread present in a template and the main characters in a category. This, and the "major secondary characters" / "minor secondary characters" (completely arbitrary and subjective article titles, btw) and "creatures" should also go.  Proto ::  ►  10:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Edison 15:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to be a legitimate annotated navigational list. --Farix (Talk) 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep good list. TonyTheTiger 19:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - no reason to delete. Redundancy is not a reason.  Insane  phantom   (my Editor Review)  05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Then having no purpose should be a reason. This just takes up space as it is stated in other places and donesn't really make things any easier. -Dylan0513 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Except, this page doesn't lack any purpose, it is intended to be informative. The only way it would have no purpose is if it were nonsense, or blank, which isn't the case.  It may not be useful to you, but there are other people who think otherwise.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there are people who agree with me. This already states what other pages have and isn't useful! I think that constitutes as not serving a purpose. -Dylan0513 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And there are people who agree with me that it does serve a useful purpose. Thus it's a wash.  I really think not serving a purpose should be reserved for patent nonsense, which this isn't.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So if I made a page for my name syaing I rock would it serve a pourpose? -Dylan0513 23:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of the page holds no more weight than anyone else's. That people agree with you is also moot, since people also disagree with you. Finally, you know that argument is flawed. you should know better than to even suggest such a thing. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you made a article saying you rock, well, yes, it would be of minimal relevant content. Assuming you added more than that though, you'd run into the personal vanity problem.  If you can get enough other people who think you rock though, you might well qualify for a page, but I'd still advise not creating it yourself.  Even editing it should be taken very carefully.  However, that is an entirely different problem, completely unrelated to the subject of this page.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free, however, to say that you rock in your own userspace though. FrozenPurpleCube 00:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Omg, you seriously just tried to disprove a stupid example I gave just so you'd actually think in terms other than that of Wikipedia's. Obviously didn't work. And of course people are disagreeing with me! I'm saying people are also agreeing with me. And I nominated this article for deletion because it serves no purpose and one of the ways it serves no purpose is though redundancy. I don't see what more of an explanation you guys want. And Manticore, please don't responde quoting any Wiki rules because I will just ignore you. You say nothing in a long way when you quote the rules. -Dylan0513
 * So you suggested that just to make a point? Not good behavior, especially if you want your reasoning to be taken seriously. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I assumed good faith, and responded to you in a civil and polite manner to explain why what you suggested would be a problem. Perhaps if you considered practicing that kind of behavior more yourself, you might find yourself less frustrated?  There is a reason why people do follow principles like those discussed in WP:Civil and your expression that you'll ignore them does not work in your favor.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Breaking the chain) Of course I did it to make a point! Do you think I'm stupid!? And did you even read what I wrote, stop quoting the rules! I epically expect less idiotic responses from a fellow Code Lyoko fan and someone who I've seen at the Tv.com forums! Oh, so trying to prove a point isn't good behavior, then what's the point of any discussions on Wikipedia? -Dylan0513 02:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The point of discussions on Wikipedia is to persuade people using reasoning and work for a consensus of agreement.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OMFG! They're called policies for a reason. They aren't strict rules and aren't meant to be quoted every single time you post in a talk page. I said before I'd ignore each time you did that. I will not respond to you or Someguy here anymore, so don't expect it. -Dylan0513 11:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They aren't referred to every time, but they are helpful to refer to, as they are useful ways to express arguments without going into excessive details, and to help show people what other people feel. I'm not sure why you're offended by referring to them, especially not in an AfD discussion which relies heavily on policy, but you should note that not every comment I've made has referred to any policy.  You should perhaps avoid such gross exaggerations.  They are not indicative of proper reasoning, but are instead merely hyperbole.  The same with your claims that you'll go off in a huff if people cite policies to you.  It's one thing to be concerned about insults and uncivil behavior, but when people choose to cite policy when you've engaged in behavior that violates it is something that should lead you to reflect upon your conduct. FrozenPurpleCube 19:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep General pages are perfectly acceptable and are what most people will look to if trying to locate a specific character. I know for a fact people often don't notice the template, as I have had to point them out at least twice to users asking on talk pages. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it - I vote this page stay as it is just as beneficial here as it is on the main avatar page, it contributes by having a separate article for characters on its own. Featuring a brief introduction, is another good feature it has as well. Keep the character profiles the way they are, relationships is interesting and adds more interesting content which is the opposite of redundant. Minor characters and secondary characters should remain as they are a good edition. For avatar fans, they are just as necessary as main characters and were displayed as they should have been. The character page deserved to have its own separate section and it was well made and nicely done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lastairbender (talk • contribs).
 * Comment - After looking over the main page and the article in question, I agree that having them both is redundant. However, I can't decide which course of action, out of deleting the article, or keeping the article and deleting the section in the main page, would be better. If the Avatar article is getting too big, I say we keep the page and delete the section. SAMAS 13:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We've already discussed deleting the section and it was decided not to. here I think that since the section is staying it's pointless for the article to be there. -Dylan0513 13:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it wasn't a discussion about deleting that section, so much as modifying it, and shortening the main article's section was actually the agreed-upon consensus. And of course, there is a clear intent to modify this page, as soon as some of this controversy has settled down, and a good consensus can be reached. FrozenPurpleCube 15:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The topic in that discussion wasn't shortening it, it was deleting it and at the very least there wasn't a consensus to delete it so that isn't going to happen. The Avatar project members came to a consensus on not deleting the descriptions and I think that's what matters there. This is a separate matter. -Dylan0513 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't, as nobody ever proposed deleting the section. So you can say there was no consensus to delete if you want, but that's still missing the point, as nobody was actually advocating it. I still don't don't know why you believe it was the case, but really, if that's what you were worried about, that wasn't the idea at all.  And that discussion did end up with a consensus that shortening that section would be appropriate.  Ignoring that is not exactly good reasoning on your part.  It's certainly inaccurate.    FrozenPurpleCube 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep I thought we alrady went over that in the main article, the section will be shortened while this list is a longer, more elaborate version of it. But I think that this article should be over the MAIN characters and not a link to the secondary, tertiary, etc. characters, as long as this is focusing on just the main ones, as I thought was intended, that will be fine. --Whydoit (Why...do it?) 22:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we ended the discussion on this article saying that when someone nominates for deletion, the discussion will continue. -Dylan0513 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thought it ended whoops, my vote still stands though. --Whydoit (Why...do it?) 03:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep We should keep this and get rid of it on the front page and make a link to this on the front page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zach111493 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
 * We've already discussed doing it and it is out of the question! -Dylan0513 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - wut zee frak? -- perfectly good list, serves a valid purpose, I can see no reason to delete a good stable list. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Add all of them to Category:Avatar: The Last Airbender characters. It looks like they may already be in the category though, which means I'm conflicted. It's completely normal to have a list of characters such as this one for easy access, but part of me think it's not all that necessary. Verdict: weak keep per precedent.-- Wizardman 00:01, 18 January 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.