Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of comic and cartoon characters named after people


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

List of comic and cartoon characters named after people

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

Article appears to be entirely original research. Also, much of the article is non-compliant with WP:N and WP:V. Also, since it deals with people, the unsourced information (the entire article), may conflict with WP:BLP. The idea of the page itself does not seem to follow WP:FICT guidelines. Finalnight (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Some of the entries can obviously be sourced. I think this is something to discuss on the talk page. have attempts been made to find sources. -- neon white talk 21:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete I suppose that it can be sourced, but do we need "proof" that "Cary Granite" on The Flintstones is a parody of Cary Grant? Or that "Helga Pataki" on Hey Arnold! has a name that sounds inspired by George Pataki?  This is original research by someone who has heard the names "Yogi Bear" and "Yogi Berra" and put 2+2 together.  Mandsford (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Yogi Bear/Berra connection has been made by many sources and so is not original. However, when the baseball player threatened to sue, Hanna Barbera denied that there was a connection.  The disputed connection is thus quite notable and we may find other similar examples from the pages of Private Eye (which currently lampoons Gordon Brown in the style of The Broons).  Colonel Warden (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Actually, putting 2 plus 2 together is the classic example of what is not OR; common sense is a permissible editing method. As other people will have discussed both the obvious and the non obvious, it will be formally sourcable, as even admitted by an editor wanting to delete the article. I suggest that people should have tried to do so before nominating it here. The BLP connection seems rather remote unless some of these are considered offensive, in which case those ones will indeed need actual sourcing. Can't see what any of the multiple proposed versions of FICT has do do with it, even if there were any agreement on the guideline DGG (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Some of these associations are very notable and so the list has a good basis. The current lack of sourcing is not significant because it is a list and the blue links provide reasonable basis for the entries.  If there are some disputed entries then these should be addressed individually.  This is not a reason to delete the entire article. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, I agree with nom. Saying that something could be a reference to something, without a source to back up, is original research. Saying that something is a reference to something, without a source to back up, is even worse. And this list lists characters by a non-defining characteristic: Alexander Lemming, Alvida, and Ann-Margrock share being named after real people - so what? – sgeureka t•c 07:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). Also, legitimate search term with clear editorial interest.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 08:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The Flintstones wikipedia page shows examples of several characters named after celebrities of their time, it rather obvious in those examples. Dream Focus (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, quite a few of these are sourced back on their main article. This suggests that people consider the information encyclopedic. A few of them are fabrications/pure OR, but AfD is not cleanup. Just put a "citation needed" tag on the ones that are hard to confirm, then remove them after a few weeks if no sources are forthcoming. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   —Ford MF (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Fee Fi Foe Fum. Ford MF (talk) 02:24, 30 June 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.