Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Get Fuzzy 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

List of Get Fuzzy characters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In-universe fancruft, no sourcing beyond the strips themselves. Most of these characters were only around for one story arc and are not relevant to the comic. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  02:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  02:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  02:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support deletion: As the nominator suggests, this is nothing more than an unreferenced, original-research fan page. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not qualify for its own article, lots of WP:PUFF and WP:OR everywhere, relies on a single source. Perhaps some of the more notable secondary characters would go into Get Fuzzy, but otherwise, delete. hmssolent \You rang? ship's log 02:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep — detailed listing is too long for main article but is still very useful. Short-term recurring characters are not covered in excessive detail.  Editors have put a significant amount of work into it over a period of two years.  Also, where are you going to find a much reference material about any comic strip, except for major classics like Superman?   –radiojon (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. And think about it — if there are no sources, then there's no notability, and it shouldn't have an article. We don't cut slack for anything even if it's something you think it'd be hard to find sources for. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. By its own terms, ITSUSEFUL is a valid argument in assessing whether to keep a spinout article when the parent topic is clearly notable. This is a pure content dispute, and doesn't belong at AFD. Whether this article needs substantial pruning, or whether it should be summarized and reinserted into the parent, is a routine content decision. What the nominator proposes -- removing all discussion of the characters in a fictional work -- is plainly inappropriate and obviously inconsistent with consensus practice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I said "most" of the characters are not relevant. Summarizing just the three main ones in the main article is all you really need. I would be okay if the content on just the main three were merged. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete With no secondary sources this is really the opinions of people who read the strip. If merged cut out 90% or more of the material. No need to retell the jokes. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you want to "find reference material" on a comic strip go to your local bookstore or Amazon.com and BUY a collection of the strips. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm usually a supporter of character list articles, but this one is WAY too larded with trivial plot detail. It's also entirely sourced to one primary source.  Even on character lists, reliable secondary sources are not optional. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, per reasons given by Kitfoxxe. This is the definition of fancruft. —  Scott  •  talk  10:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge, as appropriate, with Get Fuzzy (after a lot of pruning).  Mini  apolis  13:30, 9 May 2013 (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.