Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Episodes Where Butters Plays A Significant Role


 * 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 merge into Butters Stotch. - ulayiti (talk)  13:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Episodes Where Butters Plays A Significant Role
I'm also nominating Episodes Where Timmy is Significant. Two lists of South park episodes centered on one character, listcruft. E ivindt@c 20:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It is very neccesary to have a list of episodes where Butters is significant. In recent years, Butters has tended to upstage Kenny. You should have a list of episodes with Butters because that way we know which episodes have Butters and which ones have Kenny. 1028 20:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete with extreme prejudice. I love the series.  I love the character.  But this doesn't even begin to approach notability. AlistairMcMillan 20:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Butters Stotch? It's short enough, after all. But don't keep the article as is. Melchoir 21:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (Oh, and the other one to Timmy (South Park).) Melchoir 21:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, listcruft, nyah. tregoweth 21:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft. Unencyclopedic. Both of them, by the way. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 22:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above Ydam 00:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Melchoir. --Icarus 02:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Melchoir... Both lists are linked to from the main character articles now, and are appropriate in the main articles I think. Grand  master  ka  03:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. IMHO lists are pretty non-encyclopedic, and this is trivial at best. And what defines "significant", anyway? Fluit 07:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Butters' article or Delete Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete For the same reasons as Fluit stated. Not encylopedic at all.--Ted87 22:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge info, then delete page (no redirect needed from this unlikely search term; attribution can be recorded on the talk page). BD2412  T 00:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per above.  Grue   14:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or keep, good content, but should not be in their own articles. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be merged, but not deleted.1028 23:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Thoroughly unencyclopedic. — Encephalon 04:01, 20 May 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.