Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Atomic Betty


 * 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. Nja 247 19:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in Atomic Betty

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

WP:LISTCRUFT, a trivial list with no notability. All the "sources" are just episodes of the program. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as NN trivia. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 10:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 10:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 10:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as poorly-sourced list relating to non-notable topic. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what you are calling a "non-notable topic"? The show?  The characters? Hobit (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The series is for sale on Amazon, so the DVD is a valid source as long as it only discusses the subject itself and makes no attempts at drawing conclusions that aren't explicitly mentioned. It doesn't need independent notability because it's a spin off from Atomic Betty. Now, the split was badly performed without leaving behind a summary, but that is a reason for merging back, not deletion. (also merging has the added value of putting the information in context, so it's no longer independent so the references are valid per WP:SELFPUB - Mgm|(talk) 11:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep First of all, the main series, Atomic Betty has been going for three years and has its own article, so WP:LISTCRUFT does not apply. Second, when talking about fiction, referring back to the work when talking about it is an acceptable form of citing, otherwise we wouldn't have the cite episode template would we? See WP:WAF, which reads, in part, "Even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source.". -- Blue Squadron  Raven  14:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Standard way to organize a group of NN fictional characters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per MgM. Edward321 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:V says that using the primary source for references is perfectly acceptable.  Read through that please.   D r e a m Focus  18:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue is not about whether this information is verifiable. I don't suppose anyone would have reason to doubt that "Megan is a chubby brunette who toddles around everywhere." The question is whether these characters are notable. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are going to give WP:LISTCRUFT as a reason for deletion, the least you can do is read and understand it. I quote: "Valid examples of standalone lists would include List of University of Chicago people and List of Oz books. In both cases, the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles—University of Chicago and L. Frank Baum, respectively—and in both cases the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out." Even as it stands, it does not fail against any of the 11 criteria in that guideline. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  22:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going with #8 on that list: The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia.. BSR, I know you've spent time on this list, but please try not to take this personally, okay? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Atomic Betty. There's no reason why this information cannot be merged into the main article on the show, which certainly isn't that long. AniMate  talk  01:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ?? Redirect? or merge? The character list is 58kb with refs. The episode list is 43kb. The parent article is just under 5kb. Putting all the pieces back together will only create an article of 106kb.... not "too" big.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The DVD themselves are valid references per guideline. "Independent" notability is not required as the subject "Atomic Betty" has the established notability and this is simply a sub-article "list" of the parent. Any concerns about the split or a re-merge to the parent should be properly handled through discussion (which belongs on the article's talk page as per guideline) after a proper keep and closure of this AfD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a GFDL violation. Jemima PD (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * — Jemima PD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * has been blocked as a sockpuppet per Sockpuppet_investigations/Hilary_T/Archive. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  14:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as a good way to organize the material. Good breakout per WP:WAF. Hobit (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Query. Can somebody catch me up on on the status of this debate? As I recall, a compromise was reached allowing lists of characters. Was there some threshold that the parent show had to pass for such a list to be justified? Is List of characters in Atomic Betty a test case by the nominator? Resurr Section (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of any sort of compromise regarding lists of characters (a quick search turned up no such discussion that I could find). There are, however, many such lists of characters in any given movie/tv series/book/anime/whatever, so I'm not sure why this one was singled out. The nominator cited criteria #8 in WP:LISTCRUFT, asserting that the list is unencyclopedic. My view is that since the same guideline justifies breaking a list out into a stand-alone article from an article that is encyclopedic, in this case, the main Atomic Betty article, it is reasonable for inclusion. I note that the nominator has not attempted to send any other such lists through AfD, so if it is to be a test case I can't say on whose part. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  15:40, 30 April 2009 (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.