Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters that reguarly wear shorts


 * 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 OK, we can delete this before it gets any sillier. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

List of fictional characters that reguarly wear shorts

 * -- (View AfD)

Unnecessary list topic; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WarpstarRider 01:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. I am writing on the psychology behind wearing shorts as my English 15 college essay, and this article is cited in my paper. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Um... How exactly can you use one sentence and a list of three people, one of whom is Spongebob, for a psychology paper? -Amarkov blahedits 02:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest that fictional characters such as Charlie Brown and Spongebob make wearing shorts look "cool" and "hip" to young kids who watch such programs. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
 * And you need this particular article to note that both characters wear shorts why? -Amarkov blahedits 02:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, I would not be able to prove that both characters wear shorts with only one source. I would have to use at least two sources and that would push my paper to 11 pages in length, and I only have 10 pages left on my campus printer account. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk * contribs).
 * You're using Wikipedia as a source? Oh, lordy. 129.89.191.226 07:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One might wonder why you'd add a nonsense entry to an article that you're supposedly using as a source for a paper. WarpstarRider 02:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hulk was included in my paper because I considered him a powerful influence among children, and most children admired him for his shorts that had the ability to stay on him no matter how big he got. Crystallina was also cited in my paper because of her role in the said movie. I needed at least 5 examples to prove my point, according to paper guidelines.
 * So, wait, you're using Wikipedia to construct a source for your article? That is bad. Regardless, we can't keep articles because people are using them as references. -Amarkov blahedits 02:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Crystallina isn't a character in any movie. Cut it out and quit wasting everyone's time. WarpstarRider 02:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a small film unreleased to the public that she will deny. Nevertheless, it strengthens the argument in my paper. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk * contribs).
 * So if it's a film about a real person, why did you put it in a list of fictional characters? Koweja 06:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here in America, people have a right to the truth! If you want to delete that truth, you are also deleting freedom. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk * contribs).
 * What the heck? Wikipedia isn't bound by the Constitution, you don't have the right to have whatever you want here. Even if it is the truth. -Amarkov blahedits 02:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it is no problem to you if this place turns into a house of lies? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk * contribs).
 * Not having everything which is true doesn't make what we do have untrue. -Amarkov blahedits 02:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I should re-word. Hiding the truth turns this place into a house of deception --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk * contribs).
 * We're not hiding the truth. We don't have articles like this, and we freely admit it. -Amarkov blahedits 02:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But to delete a truthful article such as this one would be to delete the truth, would it not?
 * Quit your disruption. We are not by any stretch required to keep this article merely because you are using it as a citation. Yuser31415 03:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, have you ever considered writing a paper thats, you know, less stupid? I mean, some poor graduate student is actually going to have to read your ten pages on the vast right-wing shorts pimping conspiracy. (by the way, delete the damn article) GabrielF 07:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. We wouldn't have a category for this, and a list is no more acceptable. -Amarkov blahedits 01:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely unnecessary. FiggyBee 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listcruft what? Is anyone really going to come to wikipedia and actually try and find a list of fictional characters that regularly wear shorts. --Bobblehead 01:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 02:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listcruft. -- The Anome 02:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Obvious listcruft. Split Infinity (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nomination. Perhaps Speedy by WP:SPEEDY? wtfunkymonkey 03:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete what possible encyclopedic value could this have? TSO1D 03:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * delete - and I have to assume the defender above is kidding . . . i hope . . . ---Dmz5 04:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly positive it was a troll. WarpstarRider 04:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I do not see any reason this should be here. Somitho 05:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, listcruft, listcruft, listcruft. Hope there are no such lists such as List of fictional characters that regularly wear slippers. Ter e nce Ong 05:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete but keep above debate archived somewhere for posterity. Koweja 05:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:CRUFT, WP:NOT and because I hate freedom... apparently. -- Islay Solomon  |  talk  06:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I really wish that "You're censoring me!" wasn't something I had seen before. That's what I get for doing DRV a lot. -Amarkov blahedits 06:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But you've got to admit the whole "I have a film about a user that I can't prove and they won't admit to" is a relatively unique angle. Koweja 06:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Selmo  (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete obviously per all above. And the commentary from the author of this article smells like WP:POINT violation. -- Kinu t /c  06:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because IslaySolomon doesn't wear shorts, and Jimmy Wales is not pictured in Wikipedia in shorts either.  SkierRMH, 08:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -LtNOWIS 08:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete possibly the most bizarre example of listcruft I can recall. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, good freakin' Lord. Delete in the interests of attempting to suppress the truth. Danny Lilithborne 12:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and give the kid an F for writing a college essay on cartoon characters who wear shorts and for citing such a stupid article. Wavy G 15:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Utter rubbish with no encyclopaedic content or purpose. Doc  Tropics  16:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Vapid. Chuchunezumi 16:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I knew that the educational system was in terminal decay, but to depend for a grade on whether you can prove that Charlie Brown wears shorts? Oh, brother!!--Anthony.bradbury 18:00, 17 December 2006 (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.