Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters from Total Drama Island


 * 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. Jclemens and the nominator convinced me. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

List of characters from Total Drama Island

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

Not even bringing up the lack of sources and terrible prose (it also seems to have been vandalized significantly in Leshawna and Courtney), but it's mostly just a summary of what the characters do in the episodes, which isn't important, and acts mostly as a second list of episodes. A Link to the Past (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Sounds like the article needs to be fixed and redundant information deleted. If there's nothing left... well. But my problem deleting the list is that the characters appear to be notable. So I'm not clear on what that would accomplish. And I prefer a list of character article (even a bad one) to a plethora of individual articles on these characters. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because there would be no target for the characters doesn't mean we need to make separate articles. They're notable to some extent, but not enough that they need their own list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you'll be hard pressed to fit that amount of content in the main article. And it appears (again and again) people want their character and character list article. I'm not big on fighting losing battles. Is there some important reason not to "live and let live" when it comes to this kind of article? Won't it just be recreated? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the article is beyond unsalvageable, has no assertion of notability for one single character, and is incredibly indiscriminate. There is the main article on the cartoon, and the episodes list. so there's much reproduction of the content from those articles in this one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Beyond unsalvageable" is just an excuse for people too lazy to do the work, I'm sorry to say. It took me ten minutes to trim the article to just the necessary details, and a lack of sources on a character list, which are made for the express purpose of clumping otherwise unnotable characters, is simply not enough reason to delete once that's done. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm afraid this is a major television show, and a popular one at that, and so by definition notable. This extends to the characters in the show. The article has recieved very substantial interest from a large number of editors, also indicating a sort of notability. I actually agree with you in a sense that the characters aren't notable, but that's my personal opinion. And it's contradicted by the rules governing notability and the interest in this article shown by editors on Wikipedia;  my preference for a greater focus on more "substantive" articles not-withstanding.  ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a network television show, thus notable despite the lack of sources currently included in the article. The AfD notice is NOT placed properly on the article; I'm going to fix that. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The afd1 notice is now placed properly on the article. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article needs cleanup, and lord knows I've done it at least three times, but not deletion. Such character lists are perfectly acceptable spinouts, particularly with such a large primary cast. You can barely leave this thing alone for a day before IPs flood in by the dozens and fill it with nonsense. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Besides the over-eager anon edits keeping the regulars on their toes and a seemingly nn section for the animals it's a good candidate for more watchers and cleanup, not deletion. treelo  radda  23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment The AFD1 template was not placed on the article until the 16th. This should stay open a few more days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment at 4 keeps vs. 1 nominator delete !vote, I seriously doubt that the outcome is going to change, especially per WP:OUTCOMES. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, while it was unlisted (could have sworn I put it on the page), if it was put on the page when it was made, it's not like we'd see any input on the deletion side. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:56, 18 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.