Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters of the Powerpuff Girls


 * 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, as I find those arguments to be stronger. Plus, since it's under arbcom sanction at this time, nothing could be done anyway. Feel free to merge or relist at afd after the case is done. Wizardman 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor characters of the Powerpuff Girls

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

Predominantly non-notable one-off characters that have appeared in the television series. Fails on WP:N. treelo talk 14:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable set of characters, possibly trim down and merge. STORMTRACKER    94  Go Sox! 14:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable by themselves, should be merged into some other power puff girls page --Enric Naval (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep HELLO, it was merged OUT of the main PPG page after a recommendation to do just that. Now AfD wants to move it back...  SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Comment That's because the author forgot to specify on the talk page  "Hey, this article was unmerged from the main article Main Article as discused on its talk page. Please don't delete it on the basis that it needs to be on the main article" . Next time you unmerge for that reason, or notice an article unmerged like that, please add a similar notice to prevent this from happening. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "# (cur) (last) 13:28, 17 April 2007 SchmuckyTheCat (Talk | contribs) (create sub-page, cut from main article for size.)" Suddenly edit summaries aren't good enough.  Is there next going to be an Approved article noticeboard I have to post new articles to? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Some people will just look at the discussion page for that information. Also, history can become very long, and that page has 250+ edits. Editors who stumble upon the article might not think of looking at the edit summary of the article creation. Or, like I myself did, I saw nothing on talk page, then I entered the history, pressed "older 50" two or three times and then gave up --Enric Naval (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The history page has a "500" button. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Yeah, but I thought (incorrectly) that after so many edits someone would have dragged any notability concerns into the talk page so it wouldn't get lost on edit history. Don't worry, from now on I'll look at the page creation edit summary when I look for that stuff, but you should really consider adding a notice on the talk page to save yourself later trouble --Enric Naval (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which brings up the the larger issue of changing WP:SS to ask that editors do this, as that guideline only mentions the edit summary. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Looks like a valid summary-style spinoff of List of characters in The Powerpuff Girls. Merge it back in, and the whole would be too large. Navigation in the suite of articles is a bit wonky, though -- not everything is interlinked. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not very important things to have a page of their own. Please merge it back. Raffethefirst (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep as legitimately split off material from a long page. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a legitimate spinoff from an article about the TV series; ultimately, it would be great to have all the other character articles merged into one article called Major characters of the Powerpuff Girls Mandsford (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That already happened, see List of characters in The Powerpuff Girls (and it's looking good). – sgeureka t•c 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even though the characters on their own would fail WP:N, this article is not inherently non-notable (though it could really use some copy-editing and references). • Anakin (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no merge. Even tho it's under ArbCom, I'm going to cast my opinion here. These characters are both non-notable in-universe and out-of-universe. While the policy may not be clear on what is considered "minor characters", these are basically throw-aways used once for plot advancement. The cartoon may be non-contiguous, but these characters really add no depth to the fictional universe. This is like trying to establish notability for prop devices like mailboxes or trees. Yng  varr  01:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They show guest voices, and while the show is non-contiguous several/most of them did advance the background story (making them notable in-universe). Trying to represent this information in the main article suddenly makes all the same words appear to explain it, but not as a character list. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Comment I understand the spinout element of this article but the fact it's to do with an article being overlong which allows the parent article to define notability is foolish as it doesn't take the content of article forks like this one into account. One-time characters which don't affect any storyline or characters outside of the episode in question don't require a list. Having lists for everything and everyone in a television show regardless of WP:N is beyond the purpose of Wikipedia even if it is a content fork. -- treelo talk 00:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article were to be edited for style, I'd be willing to bet at least 75% of the size could be trimmed down. These are highly verbose descriptions of minor characters. Give them one or two sentences, as would fit minor characters, and you might be able to fit this back in to the main article, tho I am not endorsing such a merge. Yng  varr  22:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as a split off from a long page per User:JoshuaZ et al. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a sub-article created per WP:SPINOUT; as such it must be evaluated as though it were part of the "parent" article. Since the parent article is just fine, this article is just fine. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble   argue  check ) 03:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:SPINOUT is a guideline, not policy. There is no enforcement behind WP:SPINOUT, as you state above. Yng  varr  21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if it comes to that, WP:N is also a guideline. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But WP:V is not a guideline, and the material here isn't verifiable using guidelines of that policy. Yng  varr  19:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The verifiable sources are, of course, the chapters themselves :D Seriously, I don't think that we need third party sources for the actual contents of an episode, unless it cites production issues or other stuff not actually happening on the episode itself --Enric Naval (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FICT, yes, a work of fiction is a valid source for events of the story, so long as no interpretation is involved. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up, per Yng. This articles adds (though admittedly not much, it does add) to the body of information on the main article. Tonywalton Talk 22:21, 24 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.