Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters from Epic Movie (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Wizardman 15:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

List of characters from Epic Movie
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A previous deletion debate decided to delete the article, but it was not deleted. I am aiming to rectify this error by having the articl be deleted. Jedravent (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Epic Movie, then delete redirect per closure of previous AfD. I'd add the link above if I knew how.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC) --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant with the main article. JJL (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete it's just one movie with just a few major chracters, delete the page but merge with the Epic Movie page itself. --Shaggy9872004 (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per JJL. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep or merge and redirect without deleting per Lists and the GFDL. Memorable movie with memorable and verifiable characters.  A list is a fair compromise rather than having articles on individual characters.  We cannot delete and redirect per the GFDL.  If we merge or redirect, we must keep the article's contribution history as was agreed per consensus on the matter in a recent AN thread.  Thus, in a worst case scenario for an article like this one, we would redirect without deleting. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Duplicated material.  There is no right in GFDL or "lists" or anywhere else that permits duplicating entries.  The cultural standing of the film itself is low and sinking fast, but that's not germane to the discussion: the characters are already in the main article, unless we want to start naming all the barbarians turned to cardboard at the end.  Utgard Loki (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 17:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - could meet WP:LIST. However, it is better to merge into the relevant parent article.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Overly detailed list of mostly minor characters from a parody film. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But there's no benefit to our project our goal of cataloging human knowledge by doing so. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be your goal, but I'm pretty sure that isn't the goal of Wikipedia. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the goal of the project's founder Jimmy Wales, who said, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Thus, I am certain that it is the goal of Wikipedia.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and don't merge per WP:NOT. Excessive plot summary of characters from a single film, with no independent notability. Anything relevant is already covered in the main article. PC78 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As it is obviously a legitimate search term, then we would redirect without deleting in the worst case. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if it is a legitimate search term (and I don't believe it is), that would be no obstacle to deletion. "Delete and redirect" is a common outcome at AfD. PC78 (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything that is a legitime search term must be redirected as is the case here (deletion, which removes editors' contribution history as well, is only a last-resort used for hoaxes, libel, and copy vios). Otherwise, we keep and redirect when an obvious redirect exists, i.e. the Epic Movie article.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is no content to merge, as is the case here, then we are free to delete. Anyone searching for information about the film is likely to head straight to Epic Movie, so I see little value in maintaining a redirect. PC78 (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that someone created the article, which others edited and which still others have come to an AfD for is decisive proof that a redirect does indeed have some value and that editors and readers are indeed likely to search for a List of characters from Epic Movie. Therefore, there is no productive or worthwhile advantage for our project in not at least redirecting the article without deleting it.  If nothing else, it least allows good faith editors' contributions to remain visible to the public.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and don't merge per PC78. --Starionwolf (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see here. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. If only I could regain the moments of my life back lost watching this horrible film.  (jarbarf) (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal dislike of the film is not grounds for deletion of articles about it. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:37, 27 March 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.