Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas


 * 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   no consensus. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

List of characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas

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

Very little information on this page, no citations. Page not necessary, considering small scope of franchise: 2 video games and 1 movie. ~ Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 13:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Even with only notable characters, article would be nothing more than a mirror of the Voice Cast section in the main article. ~ Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 14:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete since the article has solely plot detail and no real-world context. Characters' roles can be detailed under the roof of the broader topics, the film and the video games. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge any useful real-world context that's been added since the beginning of this AFD to the film article and the video game articles with a little cross-referencing. For example, the film article could say, "Some characters from The Nightmare Before Christmas appeared in the Kingdom Hearts video games," and the video games could just mention the origin of some of its characters.  I just don't see a compelling need for a separate list since there are not straightforward story arcs of characters like with some other character lists. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 13:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Improving this article does not include copying pages from other wikis and pasting the information in the List of Characters. ~ Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 14:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's incorrect. Per WP:CLN:  "Lists are much easier to build (fill) than categories, because entries can be gathered, cut and pasted in from searches and other sources. Brainstorming entries from one's personal education is much easier, because you don't have to hunt for the articles to place the tags on, you simply type the topics into the list."  On what basis do you argue otherwise?--otherlleft (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:CLN--otherlleft (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is already a similar list on the main article. ~ Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 18:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But it serves point #6 better as a separate page. I'd prefer expanding the list to include all characters in the movie, rather than merely those in the video game or that have their own articles, since lists "may include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and yet may yet be sufficiently notable to incorporate into the list."--otherlleft (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps inclusion dependent that the character had a notable role in the movie. One editor had added characters that were essentially extras (Invisible Man, who was supposedly seen at the beginning of the movie).  Perhaps if a extremely minor character had a greater role or background given in a offshoot of NMBC, then inclusion would be acceptable.  However, if this will be the case, that characters from the series will be on the list (I haven't played the games, but if there are new characters in the games), then the page should be retitled to 'List of characters in the Nightmare Before Christmas franchise' or similar.
 * Just to list random characters who may or may not be important to the plot would be irresponsible. ~ Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 18:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the lead sentence lends confusion by conflicting with the title of the article itself, and either retitling or repurposing may be in order. However, I would recommend more latitude on how notable each character in the movie needs to be - I haven't watched it in years but if your description of the Invisible Man is accurate he might not make the grade, but in my eyes this list is simply very stubby and can be expanded to include all characters that have names and dialog.  Lists permit non-notables to be accumulated in a manner that demonstrates a collective notability.--otherlleft (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the so-called Invisible Man was just that...not visible. ~ Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 18:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Auzemandius, you recently suggested a page move for the article in question. Would you like to add further to this discussion, perhaps indicating why you would recommend moving the article if you nominated it for deletion?--otherlleft (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * More information had come into light (some characters were in more works than I had realized) and the list could be expanded to include character that were non-notable in the original work but were expanded upon in the other works. So, if the article were to be moved to a franchise list of characters page, then I would be more apt to keep the article. ~ Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 10:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you withdraw the nomination under those circumstances. We agree that moving would be problematic at this time, and deletion policy encourages nominators to do so if they find a way to resolve without deletion.--otherlleft (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

--Reinoutr (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, navigational page, we have tons of these all over the wiki.
 * Delete- It is not necessary, or even appropriate, that every movie or TV show should have a "list of characters" article. This one is an unnecessary, unsourced load of original research and plot summary dressed up to look like a list. Anything that is even remotely useful or encyclopedic is already covered in appropriate detail at the main article. Reyk  YO!  22:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've lended only nominal support, but another editor has been working very hard on referencing this article - those who have voted should review and consider. I won't say it's not poorly written but AfD is not designed for that - I still maintain that it's a notable list of characters from the franchise described.--otherlleft (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Such lists are highly appropriate. It should include every non-trivial character or if the work is important enough, every named character--this is not the type of list where the individual items need be notable to avoid spamming. it;s not like alumni of a school.  I cant see the basis for saying  that it should include only those significant to the plot--by my standards those significant to the plot should be seriously considered for an individual article. If we really want to have merge discussions here let's amend the policy and figure out how to handle the workload properly. DGG (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete – no need for a character list on a single film. Violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT, as the characters can be adequately covered in the film article, and this list is excessive and unnecessary. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 03:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your reference to WP:WEIGHT confuses me, as it states therein: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia."  Isn't the point of that section to avoid biasing a larger article with a minority viewpoint?  How is it relevant here?  Please clarify - I'm ready to change my view if your argument is sufficient.--otherlleft (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of the third paragraph of WP:WEIGHT is what's relevant here. It reads Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Sephiroth BCR, I assume, feels that the depth of detail and quantity of text is excessive. I agree. Reyk  YO!  07:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for adding a second comment, but I had to review WP:NOT to avoid an uninformed reply. In what way is a list ever a plot summary?--otherlleft (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When it summarizes plot points, as this article does. Read the paragraphs on Jack Skellington and Sally. Plot points. Reyk  YO!  07:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing some context for your views, Reyk. Would you or Sephiroth BCR further explain why deletion is preferable to rewriting the small sections in question?  The article is not, in itself, a plot summary; nor is it devoid of in-universe context.  I won't deny that it needs significant cleanup even after the recent work on it.  Are you saying you cannot imagine that the plot elements could not possible be mitigated?  --otherlleft (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, as I see it the article consists of three sections: the main characters, the minor characters and the new sections at the end. I believe the minor character section is trivial and lists things merely for the sake of listing them, not to illuminate or explain the subject, and should be chopped. The main characters are notable enough to be listed but once that section is cleaned up and brought to a respectable standard, it will be no more than a duplication of the list already in the main article and I just don't see the point. That leaves the new paragraphs on "reception" and "marketing". They're easily the most worthy content in this list, but I think they're more relevant to the main article. I certainly do not object to User:A Nobody writing good content, I just question the wisdom of writing it in an inappropriate place just to save some fairly poor stuff. It's like throwing good content after bad. Reyk  YO!  01:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Plot summary tidbits of non-notable characters. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for several reasons, the biggest of which is the WP:HEY job that A Nobody did, clearly demonstrating the potential for the article. Wow, nice job.  Next to address the nom, Very little information on this page, no citations.  Page not necessary, considering small scope of franchise: 2 video games and 1 movie.  That no one was working on it, or that it was small/stub, or that you don't find it necessary aren't exactly policy violations.  I am not sure which criteria it fails to meet or which guideline it fails as no AFD claim was made in the nom.  You tag articles (or fix them) when they simply lack citations.  It appears that this is exactly what lists are for, and the article could have just been tagged.  WP:NOT clearly doesn't apply either, else every 'List of charcters...' article would be on the chopping block.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 15:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Article had been tagged for some time with various templates. Plus, I had left out "Even with only notable characters, article would be nothing more than a mirror of the Voice Cast section in the main article." which was added post nomination.  It wasn't just that the article was unnecessary, but it was unnecessary BECAUSE it was redundant. ~ Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 10:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADLINE seems to be relevant here.--otherlleft (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, a perfectly reasonable subarticle on a notable subject. Everyking (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly suitably list article that needs cleaning up including formatting the refs. The list in the main article is of the voice actors not the characters themselves. I have no clue of the same actors were used in the derivative products but there's still no reason either list should be deleted. -- Banj e  b oi   19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I call attention to, an edit where the nominator removed substantial content from the article, and then immediately nominated for deletion. And, as people have shown, such content could have been sourced.  DGG (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The nominator did right in removing that stuff. It was unsourced, poorly written original research. As for immediately nominating for deletion, I can remember a few occasions where I have made improvements to an article and then, on reading the whole thing through, realized it was an unsalvageable mess and nominated it at AfD. That's probably what the nominator's done here. If you're suggesting more sinister motives, I suggest you reacquaint yourself with WP:AGF. Reyk  YO!  00:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One could only guess that the nominator could have avoided any question by providing a rationale on the talk page. Removing unsourced information is certainly appropriate, but that's a step I would generally associate with an attempt to salvage an article - in fact, I frequently do so myself.  Nominating for deletion is another entirely legitimate strategy, but as its ultimate goal is to have no article at all, it is inherently contradictory to article improvement.  I understand your position, Reyk, that good faith should be assumed, but should I assume that DGG's disclosure of the edit in question was NOT in good faith?  It appears that he wanted to make sure that the discussion was relevant to the article in question.  I don't assume the nominator did anything wrong, but I think it's important to the debate to realize that the article was gutted immediately prior to its nomination.--otherlleft (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that as a bit troubling - if the nom honestly feels the entire article should be deleted then why the need to remove any content. It all actually does look source-able to the original works if nothing else. -- Banj e  b oi   03:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because the nominator didn't have deletion in mind upon removing the unsourced information, but realizing there were sections already in place with the same information, decided that the article was unnecessary. ~ Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 09:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Blink blink. Then five minutes later you nommed for deletion? I noticed you also labeled all that content you removed as cruft - also rather contentious. I guess you'll be reverting yourself to re-add that content know that several folks have mentioned how it seemed to be detrimental to the health of the article? A negative impact of sorts. -- Banj e  b oi   12:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, five minutes is more than enough time to change one's mind that the article was worth keeping to believing that it was pointless. I don't understand what of myself that I would be reverting... or what exactly has a negative impact. ~ Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 13:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As to impact, you removed the content and then nominated with the phrase, "Very little information on this page . . ." That phrase might not have been necessary had you reverted your edit prior to the nomination.  I'm not doubt your good faith, but a large of amount of uncited information is often more reparable than very little information.  Most of what you removed has since been returned, so I don't personally see the point of a revert.  However, I do hope that editors weighing in have returned to the article frequently.  I've only done some minor formatting, but another editor has significantly improved it.  --otherlleft (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that you removed the info in good faith, or that you nom'ed this five minutes later after realizing you thought it needed to be deleted, all in good faith. Plenty of faith to go around.  This said, please realize that this wasn't the smartest thing I have seen all day, particularly since you didn't seem to explain the actions on the article talk page.  You shot yourself in the foot as now everyone is discussing the faith and actions of the nom, instead of the merits.  In the future, your own interests would be better served if you didn't do that.  And for the record, this has no bearing on why I still think we should keep the article.   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 18:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the problem, personally. I don't see how my interests are involved here.  I have no personal stake in this page nor any dislike for the page.  All I saw, after I removed the fluff, was a page that was a duplicate of a list already on Wikipedia.  Once I saw that, I realized the page was pointless.  Like I said, five minutes makes a world of difference sometimes.  My foot seems fine to me. ~ Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 22:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think people are generally used to seeing a deletion tag placed on an article as an editor happens upon it -- not after an editor works on it. I don't think anyone is assuming bad faith, I think it's just an unusual situation, but one that will probably come up again. Lawshoot! 01:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Final helpful hint You don't have to "see the problem" to see the result. My tip:  Next time you edit then decide to AFD it, I would revert to pre-edit, and SAY in the AFD "I tried, but it just wasn't notable (see history for my reverted changes)".  This is honest and no one can possibly question you.  It doesn't matter how "right" you are if people are paying more attention to your motives than your arguments.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 02:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article now is referenced, so that isn't an issue. Mentioning the scope is irrelevant in my opinion; it is more about the impact. Even single films and works of literature need not be a franchise to merit a character list. My appreciation to those who greatly improved the article. Lawshoot! 22:20, 14 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.