Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perry the Platypus


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 14:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Perry the Platypus

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

All of the other characters were redirected. I don't see much of a point in redirecting this, and if I did it would probably get remade anyway. No sources could possibly exist for this character. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have also nominated the following similar articles for deletion for the exact same reasons stated above:

Merge and Salt: There was a discussion at Talk:Phineas_and_Ferb that was open for over three months that I closed as merge since the keep arguments did not address the notability concerns I brought up. These are the other characters that I feel should be salted (since they currently redirect): Phineas Flynn, Candace Flynn, Isabella Garcia-Shapiro, Major Monogram, Linda Flynn, Jeremy Johnson, Lawrence Fletcher and Vanessa Doofenshmirtz. Aspects (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete and salt per WP:FICT.--Boffob (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. (I don't know what salt means).  It is certainly possible for a fictional character to obtain third-party notability (Professor James Moriarty from the Sherlock Holmes books comes to mind) but until (if) this happens, and there is solid evidence for it, all characters should be merged into the article about the main show. LouScheffer (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Salting is where they change the protection on the deleted page so only an administrator can create the article. You or I could not.  I think it goes back to Roman war methods of sowing salt into the arable soil of their defeated enemies, so nothing would ever grow there again.  It should only be done as a last resort when users keep recreating the same article.  D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 19:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Sandstein   17:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Create new article I recommend creating a "Phineas and Ferb characters" article. This information is obviously notable and worthwhile to people who are creating and writing these articles (citing and stopping original research is a separate issue). There's way too much to include in the article about the show, so all the merge recommendations are kind of worthless. Also, the format of encyclopedic character summaries is different from that of an article about a show. It seems to me this is a problem faced again and again and the way to go is to standardize the creation of "characters" articles. I don't like the words "list of" but I think "Star Wars characters" is encyclopedic enough. Once that article is created all these articles can be redirected and the information can be sensibly centralized. The only exception would be a character notable apart from the show or so large and significant it would need its own article. That's my two cents. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I investigated further and I concluded these articles are too substantial even to merge into a single article, although I think "characters" articles make sense. These characters are notable as being part of popular television shows, and the fight to eliminate them and to integrate the massive articles and interest they have into parent articles seems futile. I don't know how to deal with the sourcing and references problem, but I don't see the harm in having articles on these characters. In fact, I think it makes the encyclopedia more complete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is not inherent. Just because a show is notable, does not mean the individual charters are notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Aspects (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, or redirect if you must. I am not a fan of having an article for every marginal fictional character, but this article has some decent external links and reasonably good content.  It also has tremendous problems with OR and a lack of sources, so trim it back and tag it.  Character does have their own IMDB page, which isn't RS, but indicates a potential.  At worse, redirect.  I have to disagree with Hammer on deleting instead of merging out of fear it will be recreated.  I also think that salting is more than a little drastic.  It was deleted once under A1 for a lack of content.  Salting an article under the current circumstances is showing a lack of good faith, and shows poor reasoning.  If we deleted every article that had some OR and had only primary sources, we delete half the encyclopedia.  D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 19:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I still see no reason to keep this or the other characters, especially when the show's titular characters have already been merged. Platypi are full of win in any context, but I don't see any out of universe sources. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know the nom is in good faith, but in my old age, I am beginning to question why we are so quick to delete stuff that isn't obviously bad (spam/false bio/vandal). We aren't paper, and I am not so sure that deleting articles that are somewhat informative but borderline on policy is the way to go.  I am starting to see that in the past I worried too much about the "letter of the policy" instead of the intent, and now my focus starts at "Will this make Wikipedia better or worse?", which I think should trump every policy and guideline.  Oh wait it does!.  I understand if someone disagrees.  My big frustration was the two demands to "salt", which is completely out of line.  In this case, Wikipedia isn't better without it, so maybe we are reading the policy too strictly.  D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "...but this article has some decent external links and reasonably good content." Perry the Platypus has six external links, one to a IMDB character page, two to online games, one to a video of the show's opening and two to drawings of the character.  Ferb Fletcher has an external link to the Disney Channel's show page.  Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz has no external links.  These are not good external links that show notability of the characters. Aspects (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep either as separate articles or equally extensive sections, and create new articles or article sections of similar length for the other main characters. The argument above has it backwards--the even more important articles on the even more important characters should certainly have been kept, and the sooner we correct earlier errors the better; fortunately, we're not bound by precedent--that argument implies that if we delete one article in a group we should delete all the others, the arch-deletors never seem to understand the same argument also works in the opposite direction. As used, its another way of biasing all afds towards deletion.  It doesnt doesn't matter whether in main articles of in section: The important point is to keep the content. The clear intent of merging in this case as in many others is to remove content, as can be seen from the inadequate sections in the merged article.

The sort of detailed coverage in this section is exactly what is appropriate to a moderately important character such as this is moderately important fiction: an episode by episode analysis. As for plot, this is the level at which plot of such fictions ought to be covered--and it is usually clearer to do it right here, at the character level, as well as the episode level, they complement each other. As for duplication, we are NOT PAPER, and can duplicate as convenient for the reader; as for referencing if the sourcing is down to the episode level, implicit in the text as it is here, it meets the requirements., As for OR, the sort of description here is pretty obvious and is nto forbidden synthesis; as external critical work accumulates, it can be extended--I disagree with Dennis that we should ignore the need to avoid OR in general. (abridged,continued at ) DGG (talk)
 * Tl;dr. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * abridged to the immediately relevant--give it another try. The fewer nominated, the less there will be   need be to explain :) DGG (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I see your point, but seriously, do you think there will ever be any out-of-universe sources for these characters? I highly doubt it. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG's persuasive soliloquy. Ford MF (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment In my opinion, nothing in the Keep arguments have addressed the notability of the characters that is needed to have a Wikipedia article. These articles need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  Since I started the merge discussion in July on the Phineas and Ferb article and tagged all of the character articles, only Candace Flynn added a reliable secondary source to prove Ashley Tisdale voices the character. This either shows that no one is willing to find the sources to provide notability or there are no sources to provide notability.  Aspects (talk) 20:21, 14 November 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.