Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sidekicks (3rd nomination)


 * 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 Speedy Delete per WP:CSD. -Djsasso (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

List of sidekicks
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Every fictional character has a sidekick, say for example - if this was to be complete this list will become overcrowded otherwise too indiscriminative. I recommend this to be speedy deleted for tat reason. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reason for nomination As I want to say this again, this list is too indiscriminate and will never be completed. If it does, it will become way too overcluttered.


 * Keep no deletion reason given. I There's a common fallacy here: that any list will either be incomplete and therefore worthless, or complete and hence indiscriminate--one or another of these alternatives can and has been used against every list in Wikipedia. A list limited to the notable objects of a type will be neither. It will be as complete as it ought to be, and as discriminating. If this contains those who are notable by being included in WP, it will be properly selective, not indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, yes I have, my reason is, it is too indiscriminate, every fictions have a sidekick. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete if every fictional character has one, it'll be much too broad. Of course that isn't so, but as Sidekick indicates, there are nonfictional examples too (such as Ed McMahon). Hence a true list of sidekicks would mix fictional and nonfictional cases. I might feel differently about List of superhero sidekicks, say, but this is too broad. JJL (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep No coherent reason to delete is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the arguments I gave previously. Please see here and here and the decision of the first AfD.  The article is a discriminate list that satisfies Lists.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article was previously deleted, but was just recreated (without wikilinks) apparently by copy-pasting from a cache of the deleted page.  The subject of the list lacks a clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria (WP:LISTV).  It furthermore conflates fictional characters with real people. - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete WP:CSD - recreation of an article that was deleted at the end of December. Also a GFDL violation, since it appears to be a copy/paste of a mirror site that hadn't updated yet to remove the deleted original. Resolute 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tagged as G4 speedy. Deor (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete WP:CSD. User:Dorftrottel 21:35, February 19, 2008
 * Delete As a recreation of an article deleted under WP:AfD, it appears to qualify for immediate speedy deletion. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:37, 19 February 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.