Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Full House 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Full House characters

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable. Non encyclopedic. Trivial. Wikipedia is not a collection of useless information  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 00:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are many "list of characters in X" articles, though I've never seen one so incredibly bloated. Some guy (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak delete: Material is sufficiently covered in Full_House. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Given that this article is substantially larger than that section, on what basis do you assess sufficiency? Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: On the basis provided in the nomination. The list is overkill. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per, WP:ATD, then, the proper course of action is to trim the excess, rather than delete the list. Jclemens (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When you trim the excess, you have Full_House. Hence my original Delete !vote. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your position is clear, thanks. I disagree with it as both unnecessarily severe compared to editing and unsupported by policy. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to "Weak delete" per Zagalejo. Finally, a source! Still, per WP:GNG, I'd like to see significant independent coverage. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Lists of characters from notable network television shows are themselves sufficiently notable; merging would excessively enlarge Full House. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: In other words, it passes WP:LISTCRUFT: "In general, a 'list of X' should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article." What I want to know is, why is it of encyclopedic value that Michelle bought Shorty the Donkey for 221 dollars? Non-notable characters of a notable program are no more notable than non-notable citizens of a notable country. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Had you noticed that Steve Hale is the only character listed that is also covered in the main article? There are 40+ other characters referenced in the list.  If Shorty is NN, delete Shorty, not the entire list. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The main characters are listed in both places. Shorty is a shining example of why this list should go, but the rest of it still qualifies IMO, even if it doesn't shine as brightly. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Demonstrate that this stuff is notable, however, and I'd be happy to soften my stance. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Trimming and cleanup is needed, but a list of characters from a long-running series is appropriate. --M ASEM 02:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- Trim if necessary, but its a notable and acceptable list. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Notable per what sources? Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the show itself. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: However precedent has been set for spinning off character pages and episode lists for TV series, especially long-running series, and WP:NOTINHERITED is not applicable to pages that are spun-off from a main in this fashion. 23skidoo (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge, cleanup is not a deletion criteria. 76.66.201.13 (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this was one of the highest rated shows of its era. This content is entirely verifiable and useful. Some editors may wish to trim it a bit. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with the reasoning provided by and the anon above. It might need some level of trimming, but spinning off character lists that would otherwise needlessly enlarge the main article is a valid use of Summary style - Mgm|(talk) 09:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT for several points: this is basically an indiscriminate collection of trivial information of minor characters. There are no supporting references, and I personally doubt that you'd be able to find suitable references for many, if not all of these characters. Also under WP:FICT, the whole article is written in-universe; if this were trimmed down to suitability under those guidelines, you'd end up with a bulletted list of characters and actor names, and again, WP:NOT, this is not a fan-site, there are suitable places for such. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * keep I hated Full House. But this is not a "list of indiscriminate information" because it focuses only on "characters" in "Full House" ... it is a widely-viewed television series that had plenty of outside news coverage and is therefore notable...  We have plenty of lists of characters here already, so I gather that we think it would be "encyclopedic" ...  The list is appropriate to the parent topic...  and as for it being "trivial"--who cares?  If there's sources for notability, then it's in.  Just because we might not "like" a topic doesn't mean it should be deleted.  One editor's "trivia" is another editors "specialist topic" --Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse notability with popularity. According to WP:N, "Notability is distinct from 'fame,' 'importance,' or 'popularity,' although these may positively correlate with it." In order to demonstrate such a correlation, reliable sources need to be presented. News coverage of the show in general is already of limited relevance to an encyclopedia, and doesn't imply the notability of minor characters, any more than news coverage of my hometown&mdash;a tourist town, so it's popular, too!&mdash;makes me notable. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OUTCOMES such TV shows are presumably notable. Places that really exist are inherently notable, too. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that the show itself is notable, but per WP:RS, not per its popularity independent of WP:RS (actually its presumed popularity, because we don't truly know just how popular a show is without sources). My town is notable, but I don't inherit that notability. Full House is notable, but Freddy/Freida the Fish? Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Until recently deleted, the primary Full House article had a sourced (Nielsen) list of ratings for the series, showing it was consistently within the top 30 shows. Why this was deleted I'm not sure, but surely is an indicator that it's not just presumed popularity? Perhaps that removal should be reverted also, was claimed as "fandom". dpwoodford (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. As per my non-vote comment above, precedent has been set for articles of this nature for long-running series. Content issues can be handled at the article level. AFD is to determine if an article is viable, and based upon precedent it is. 23skidoo (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep' a perfectly justifiable fork of a notable television series. Alansohn (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep About a dozen characters appeared in the opening credits, and there were many other recurring characters who are mentioned in independent sources. This seems like a valid spin-out from the main article. It could use some cleanup, but AFD is not for cleanup. Zagalejo^^^ 23:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I removed the original deletion, apologies if I went about it the wrong way, but my points pretty much covered here. List of characters from a TV show is notable on precedent if nothing else. Possibly clean-up required (though I don't object to it being as extensive as possible), but deletion absolutely incorrect. Dpwoodford (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or at least trim severely. Bloated article that has little relevant to do with why Full House is notable, even if Full House is in fact notable enough to warrant all these sub-pages. Much of the information even appears defined improperly: "Pam is seen only once in the series, portrayed by actress Christie Houser in the episode Goodbye Mr. Bear in a home video, which depicts Pam and Danny returning from the hospital with newborn baby Michelle...," is listed under Recurring characters even though she only appeared once&mdash;clearly not recurring. Bolwerk (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Wow. You've not made any contributions under this username in almost a year--welcome back.  What motivated you to pick out this AfD to comment on upon your return? Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Editorial changes and merit can be discussed subsequently on the article discussion (I assume recurring was meant as features regularly by name, but not in person, not sure if this is defined in WP guidelines somewhere). Nonetheless, not sure how this warrants deletion. Does any character list (24 etc) serve to prove notability? dpwoodford (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Its a major sitcom that ran for 8 years. During this time there were obviously many plotlines and many characters. Conceivably we  could get it all into one article, but that would probably be book-length.  The only way to handle subjects of this sort is to divide up the material in some reasonable way, and to separate the characters is an obvious step. Its the coverage of the fiction as a whole that has to b=include more than plot, and it does--the part of the coverage discussing the plot and characters will just discuss the plot and characters. I think a number of us regard this entire show as unfortunate--personally, I regard the entire genre as unfortunate--but t his shouldn't affect how we handle it, if people who are willing to watch it are willing to write the articles. I gather from one of the comments above that there may be inaccuracies, and there solution is of course to fix them. DGG (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A useless list of characters and other trivia from a not very popular show. Completely un-encyclopedic.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Full House was a very popular show. Maybe not in Canada, but in the US, it ran for eight seasons, and the reruns are still shown at least twice a day. Zagalejo^^^ 19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral for now. I can judge only if a serious cleanup is performed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per DGG. If we don't already have a notability guideline for list of characters maybe we should create one. This show, IMHO, was rather insipid but it was a major network leader and launched the careers of at least a handful of actors. So then it comes down to can the article be improved through regular editing? Yep. -- Banj e  b oi   00:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and Paul McDonald. Glass  Cobra  22:47, 21 November 2008 (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.