Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Television shows featuring older versions of cartoon characters


 * 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. There's definitely a consensus that this article has problems, but no consensus as to what to do about that, so we default to keeping. There are valid arguments made on both the keep and delete side of the discussion. Discussions about retitling or merging can happen on the article talk page. If no good solutions can be found a return to trip to AfD down the road would not be at all inappropriate. Actually sourcing the article in some fashion would presumably make that less likely. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Television shows featuring older versions of cartoon characters

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unsourced list of original research and trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Reyk YO!  13:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The concept of repackaging animated characters in order to further a profitable franchise is, in itself, notable. Thus, the Flintstones managed to sustain itself beyond the early 1960s with older versions (Pebbles and Bam-Bam as teenagers) and younger versions (The Flintstone Kids).  This would work better if there was some context, sourced to reliable sources, for these updated versions.  At the moment, it's a list that didn't have the dreaded "L-word", but got caught anyway. Mandsford (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. A cartoon that has older characters than in some past cartoon leans more towards the side of trivia than it does to being a notable characteristic.  Even more tenuous is listing shows like Death Note, that simply advanced the timeline a year or two between seasons/episodes. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep one of the five pillars of the Wikipedia, is that Wikipedia strives to be many things, including an almanac. That's policy.  Read the top part of WP:FIVE.  The page explaining the almanac part is at WP:ALMANAC and it list the article List of Simpsons episodes as an example of what should be included.  I believe listing what notable shows have been made from previous shows with young versions of the characters, is quite encyclopedic.  A good almanac of facts.  Just as List of massively multiplayer online games, List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners, List of actors who have played comic book characters, and whatnot, are notable.  This is a fine list article.   D r e a m Focus  19:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * None of which address the point that it is a trivial characteristic of a TV show. This rabid inclusionism of cruft is getting nauseating. Tarc (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They predict that it's going to get even worse in 2006. Mandsford (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's only trivial if no secondary sources exist. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's trivial only to the extent that it refers to characters being slightly older. From a financial standpoint, Nickelodeon and Hanna-Barbera did quite well in creating teenage versions of Pebbles and Tommy Pickles.  Nausea aside, this would work as an article with a short list, rather than a list with a short article. Mandsford (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Surely the members of the Article Rescue Squadron will turn up sources on the topic of older versions of characters. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The title is awkward. I was imagining, say, Steamboat Willie appearing on any TV show, since that's an older (further in the past) version of Mickey than the current one.  I agree with Abductive; I'd like to see sources treating this as a subject. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:ORfest. Do we have an article on this subject? Not that I see. Can we find secondary sources on that subject? Probably not. Do we need a list without an article on the subject. Certainly not. Mangoe (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Or likely find a good merge candidate. I might be missing something here but if an established cartoon character is presented as one age, arguably throughout their "lives", and then a new show repackages them as a an older version of themselves that doesn't seem to be either indiscriminate or OR. And every show is sourcible to itself but likely also has received some coverage that would attest to the bare basics as presented here. And trivia would also not seem to apply as this is a stand-alone list of this occuring not trivial information tacked onto some other subject. There is a point to be made that this is a very short list so may better serve our readers as prose in some other article but I would want someone much more familiar with our coverage in this subject area to offer a way forward. If no elegant solution for a merge then leaving it just where it's at seems acceptable for now. -- Banj e  b oi   15:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, don't people think this needs an improved name? Abductive  (reasoning) 19:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The name strikes me as wonky whereas we strive to be clear. I'm unsure though just where this content should be used and how it should be labelled. -- Banj e  b oi   19:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - without any secondary sources on the topic itself it's original research. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DreamFocus and as list is a useful navigation guide for those interested in the topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a suffficiently notable concept and list of notable characters. Agreed we need a better title, but that's for subsequent discussion.    DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 18 March 2010 (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.