Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of VeggieTales 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

List of VeggieTales characters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although the series VeggieTales in marginally notable, there is no indication that this extensive list of cartoon characters is a notable WP:LISTN. Perhaps it could be greatly reduced and merged with VeggieTales. I am One of Many (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn:pbp provides the policy-based explanation that in part convinced me to withdraw this nomination. I have also been doing a lot of reading of other cases and views.  Fictional characters are not, in general, held to the same standards of notability as real characters.  So, I hope everyone understands that this has been a policy learning experience for me regarding fictional characters.--I am One of Many (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is nothing "marginal" about the notability of Veggie Tales, which was a "hugely successful" and influential series in the Christian media world.  As a review of an academic book about the franchise puts it: "in 1998, Christian retailers demarcated the children's video market as "BV" and "AV": before and after Veggie Tales."  Without doubt, coverage of the series characters belongs in Wikipedia.  I am inclined to think that this separate article is appropriate to avoid excessive clutter within the main article, though it could certainly benefit from editing.  I don't know about every one of those vegetables, but GNews certainly shows plenty of coverage of Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber, for example.  In any event, since we would be discussing merger vs. keep, but not deletion, this isn't really a discussion for AfD but rather for the normal editing process. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I meant marginal notability according to the sources cited (i.e., they are not that broad). I agree that it is notable with in a particular domain of the Christian media world.  Outside of this domain, there is little evidence of notability.  My thoughts are that although the list doesn't appear to meet the guidelines for notability, it could be included in a much briefer version in the main article.  It may turn out in the future that independent third party sources would justify such a list, but they do not appear to exist now.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't domain-specific: either the topic VeggieTales meets the criteria or it doesn't. In fact, it does, and your argument about "a particular domain" is not a policy-based argument.  On the second point, are you asserting that 1) you don't see sources cited in the article currently, or 2) you have searched for sources per WP:BEFORE and can't find any? Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I wasn't very clear, but notability is domain specific in a couple of different ways. First, we have criteria for notability for different domains such as companies and academics.  Second, we have to look at different domain sources for notability depending on the domain of the article we are trying to determine notability.  For example, if you want to determine the notability of VeggieTales, you don't want to search Pubmed.  The notability of VeggieTales is in Christian sources and not Jewish or Hindu sources.  Notability isn't black or white either.  That is why we have AfD.  Notability, on Wikipedia, is determined by criteria for notability, sources, and consensus.  VeggieTales is clearly notable within the domain of Christian sources with modest coverage outside of that domain.  If I had to do it again, I would not have used the term "marginal" but rather "very domain specific".  Now turning to the list of characters in VeggiTales,  for a list to be notable, not every or even most of the elements of that list need to be notable, but there should be reliable independent sources that discuss the list, in this case the list of characters.  I could find no such discussion and certainly no source for such extensive description of each character.  The extensive descriptions themselves look like original research, but I did not bring that issue up.  Keep in mind that we have a lot of users on Wikipedia that have knowledge of different domains and so whereas a given user such as myself knows some domains well, I do not know others.  When an article lacks notability as it stands (e.g., has no references or the references fail to establish notability), then an editor should try to verify the article.  I did that but could not for this list article.  I also realized that I might not know where to look and so it is possible that it is notable.  That's why I brought it here.  If it is notable, people will find the sources necessary and I'll be happy about that.  So far, that hasn't happened as I see it.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're reasonably clear, all right, but utterly wrong. And when I say "utterly wrong", I mean that your response above should be sufficient to close this deletion discussion as unfounded.  First, notability exists independently of the references that do or do not exist in the article, based on the existence of coverage, full stop.  Second, it's not too hard to actually search for sources.  Try the name of one of the characters towards the top of the list, for instance: Say, Bob the tomato.  You may get a different list of references than I do, but I see The Orlando Sentinel, The Tennessean, Chicago Sun-Times, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Salt Lake Tribune, Chicago Tribune... and that's just the first page. Non-paywalled sources include New York Times, Herald-Journal, Entertainment Weekly, Zap2it, Broadcasting & Cable, and Animation Magazine.  What do all these sources have in common? Not a one of them is religious press, which brings me to the third point:  Niche notability (or lack thereof) is irrelevant when a topic is extensively covered in mainstream media. There are a ton more Christian Post and Christianity Today articles, which everyone who wants to can find through the same Google News search. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you that Veggietales is notable, but notability is not inherited and it is the notability of list that is questionable as I see it (whether it is will be determined by consensus). The articles you cite say little about the characters.  They don't, as I see it, establish the notability of the extensive list and description that appears to have come from original research.
 * I also disagree with you about notability. If notability existed independent of references, then why include references in articles?  We do it because references help establish notability.  Secondly, notability on Wikipedia is determined by consensus.  We see arguments about whether an article is notable or some part of an article is notable here and elsewhere on Wikipedia.  As you well know, sometimes people simply can't come to an agreement about notability even with the same references.
 * Also, please note that I suggested two alternatives: merging and reducing it to a more independently sourced notable list. The latter might just include main characters for which there are descriptions.
 * Finally, it doesn't matter what either you or I think about the notability of the list, it will be decided by consensus. If the consensus is to keep, that is fine with me.  Just as long as the process of consensus works, Wikipedia will do well.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: I found List of VeggieTales characters. This looks like just what is needed for this article.  Do you think this is a reasonable reference?--I am One of Many (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops: The book sold on Amazon is from Bookvika Publishing, which simply copies Wikipedia articles and sells them as books.--I am One of Many (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right that it doesn't matter what you think, because you're not thinking policy. You lack the multiple years of studying, applying, improving, and evolving the policies related to fictional elements that I have.  And while what I think matters, it matters not because I think it, but because I intimately understand both the written policy and its consensus application, on the basis of participation in scores of similar debates, on the basis of outcomes of similar list article work, and so forth.  For example, the idea that "notability is not inherited" does not apply to a character list that contains multiple notable characters themselves; if you knew policy, you would know this. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm learning. I learn from every interaction I have here.  I'm learning from you as well. I realize that how policy is written and how it is interpreted are different things and I do want to learn both.  Now, let me explain how I interpreted written policy.  In WP:LISTN is written:


 * "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." [bold is my emphasis]


 * I interpreted this to mean that the group of characters must be notable (a few individually is enough), so reliable independent articles discussing the characters was important. If I understand you correctly, if any series is notable, then the group of characters are notable and justify a stand-alone article?  For example, something I'm more familiar with, Star Trek: The Original Series has lists, but not a separate list of characters.  Would it be appropriate to make a stand-alone list of characters?  If you convince me that notability of lists of characters is inherited (by interpretation of policy) from series, then I will change my position to keep.  Please keep in mind that I'm here to cooperate, I'm more interested in saving articles than deleting them, and more than willing to admit I'm wrong when I'm shown that I'm wrong.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep we have character lists for plenty of other fictional franchises. There are plenty of individually notable "episodes" (really, separate works with the same format), and two feature length movies, and the characters overlap between them, so a list of characters is entirely consistent with our common outcomes. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Since I created this particular page, I think, and I'm the one who has predominantly been baby-sitting the overall Veggie pages over the past 2-3 years, I obviously have a vested interest, but my opinion is 1) its obviously notable despite the attempts to make it a fringe topic by some people and 2) if the decision was made to boot this particular page, you'd then have to boot AT LEAST a hundred other pages that ONLY list TV episodes/characters/locations/etc - because there are alot and very very few of them have any references at all let alone 3rd party. So I guess my question is "Where do you draw the line?" Obviously "everyone else does it" is not a viable reason for keeping the page, but it's something that needs to considered because deleting a page like this "should" result in other dominios falling.Ckruschke (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * The gold-standard would be the List of Sesame Street Muppets, but a list doesn't need to reach 5% of the references in the Muppet list. Personally, I would keep the list simply because it is cute, but cuteness is not a Wikipedia criterion.  Arxiloxos references a book on Google .  It doesn't appear to focus on the list per se, but could any of the references in it be used to source the list?--I am One of Many (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Point taken - I (nor any other contributors) have worked to try to reference the information contained on the page. It has a posted "this page needs references" tag, but I've never had the time to pump it up. I guess if I'd realized the page could be deleted because of this, I might have given it more thought. Ckruschke (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Keep. Reminds me of when a noobie tried to delete Procol Harum.  VeggieTales is exceptionally well-known, and a list of its characters avoids the worse alternatives. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:LISTN, a topic is considered notable "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", which is the case here. Yes, we could opt to reduce the list down and merge it with the main VeggieTales article, but this is not a requirement. And saying that VeggieTales is of "marginal" notability seems rather point-y. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: legitimate content fork from VeggieTales, and Larry and Bob both are notable in their own right p  b  p  23:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. JJ98 (Talk) 06:00, 17 March 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.