Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sidekicks


 * 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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

List of sidekicks

 * — (View AfD)

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, a "sidekick" is too nebulous to be indiscriminate (per WP:NOT). hateless 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment at Talk:Sidekick there is no trace of the problem you suggest there may be with the concept. -- User:Docu
 * Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Also suffers from POV/subjectivity problems. Otto4711 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Sidekicks are a valid concept, and there's a fair amount of discussion on them. Even a few books as I recall.  I suppose it could be broken up into genres though.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-defined archetype. A messy list is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu
 * The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation &mdash; Iamunknown 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post &mdash; Iamunknown 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Convert to category, that's what categories are for. A conversion is no loss of information.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This argument was already discussed in the numerous other threads you brought it up. -- User:Docu
 * Delete per hateless, nebulous indeed; and per Radiant, fictional sidekicks already exists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Overbroad, uncited, POV converns (who decided if a character is a sidekick or not).  Category is probably more appropriate despite the loss of quick descriptions.  Eluchil404 11:08, 11 January 2007 (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.