Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ever After High 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Ever After High characters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is nothing here that's encyclopedic and/or properly verified (well, verified at all). The descriptions etc. are all OR, and a short list of important characters and their voice actors is the most that we should have--and we have that already, in the main article, Ever After High. The rest is, well, fancruft--sorry. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. This unreferenced mess should probably be on a wikia. That said, I tend to find lists of characters useful and often, encyclopedic (notable). But this would really need a source for me to consider a week keep instead. As it is, I am leaning to a week delete... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to parent article Ever After High, which currently has nothing but the names of the characters and the voice actors, no descriptions. Character lists (and not merely names) are standard for serial media and franchises. As far as this list being "OR", there might be some flights of interpretive fancy that could be trimmed out, but otherwise basic descriptions of the characters are verifiable from the webseries itself and even the toy line's packaging (which presumably has some character descriptions, or maybe my childhood reading the detailed G.I. Joe file cards and Transformers tech specs spoiled me in that regard). We really need to stop wasting time at AFD just to deal with content development issues related to notable topics. postdlf (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The real waste of time lies in keeping out fan cruft. There isn't a single source cited, and the author thought that adding links to the Mattel shop counted as verification. I have no objection to the content in the main article being expanded somewhat, but not with the current material. I'm not speculating on your childhood, but we need to remember we're an encyclopedia, not a place for OR or trivia--or details lifted from primary tech specs. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing the verifiability policy and the notability guidelines. —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  19:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? Right now you just have a WP:VAGUEWAVE. I explained above why this is verifiable, and the series (the parent article of which merely points to this list) is notable. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh. The article as it stands is unsourced and I can't find much that would count toward WP:N, though there is some (things that are close to passing mentions).  I like character lists as reasonable breakout articles, but would at least like to see this article have primary sources in it.   Hobit (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't appear to have any sources, and looks remarkably like advertising in support of an underwhelming toy line. RomanSpa (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2014 (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.