Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chipettes


 * 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 merge with Alvin and the Chipmunks. Although the broad consensus of the discussion would support a keep closure, the contributions from single-purpose accounts and from IPs masquerading as accounts have been given little weight. There is little support for a delete, and the article is not at present excessively 'in universe', however, the Chipettes have no notability beyond appearing in Alvin and the Chipmunks. The article can safely be pruned by whoever performs the merge. Sam Blacketer 21:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Chipettes

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

In-universe article about a fictional girl band in a cartoon series. There are no significant independent sources cited, and most of the article appears to e the work of an editor with no other contributions (very odd, given that this is a fictional group). Cruftbane 17:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CITE and WP:FICTION. Merge Agreed. Could belong in Alvin and the Chipmunks.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 17:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Alvin and the Chipmunks, perhaps? --UsaSatsui 17:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge; nothing wrong with an editor only editing one article, maybe their only interest is the Chipettes? Odd, maybe, but not a contributing factor for deletion. Masaruemoto 20:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm the editor mentioned above. I'm not the only one to have worked on this article, but I am a major contributor.  Frankly, I find this nomination hard to understand.  When did the Chipettes become so insignificant as to be deemed un-wiki-worthy?  The Chipettes were not only major characters on a popular cartoon series, but are also emblematic of the 1980s and serve as pop culture touchstones for many who grew up in that era.  They are at least as significant as Bumblebee and Jazz from the Transformers or the various Sailor Moon characters, each of which still has their own entry.  I realize that this argument is pretty much the Pokemon test, but it is valid nonetheless in that the Chipettes are at least as culturally significant and recognizable as the above mentioned characters.

Also, although there is an in-universe section to the article, there is also a substantial section dealing with the characters as the intellectual property of their creators, Janice Karman and Ross Bagdasarian Jr. To characterize the entire article as being an "in universe" article is unfair. In order for someone to have come to that conclusion, they must not have read the whole thing.

I have plenty of independent sources to cite (such as the sources of the quotes of the creators of the Chipettes talking about how and why they came up with their creations) but am not clear on how to do this. If someone would like to help with the editing of the article or show me how to cite outside sources through footnotes, etc., I'd be happy to learn. I am writing this in good faith out of an honest belief that these characters and the article are wiki worthy, not as a "fanboy". The article is not cruft. The_General_Nikos
 * "Emblematic"? LOL!  Not hardly.  Cruftbane 21:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your rebuttal? Emblematic: being or serving as an illustration of a type. The leg warmers, the 80s hairstyles and attitudes...the Chipettes are at least as emblematic of the 80s as Jem and the Holograms, the first gen Transformers, and other iconic cartoons of the era.  How are they less significant than say Jazz or Bumblebee or each of the individual Dragonball Z characters which have their own articles?  As another user has pointed out, you're quite arbitrary with your definition of what constitutes cruft. Just because something is beyond the pale of your experience that hardly means it's fancruft or unworthy of wikipedia.  The Chipettes are instantly recognizable to anyone who watched cartoons in the 80s.  A cursory search on google or youtube reveals that they are still widely recognized in the pop culture universe.The_General_Nikos  —Preceding

unsigned comment added by General Nikos (talk • contribs) 20:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC) That's why The Chipettes should have their article remain as it is,and should,of course,be enhanced with new data,when available. Charles Williams —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sketchpad (talk • contribs) 11:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The Chipettes are such deep and well-rounded three-dimensional characters, they most certainly deserve their own article!! The Chipettes are a cultural icon of the 80s.  The major contributor to the article did a fine job.
 * Keep Chipettes rock!! There's certainly enough to be said about the Chipettes for them to deserve their own article.  Chipettes are more than just a footnote to Alvin and the Chipmunks!  HHeinous
 * Keep As with all the other votes for keep I think that the page should not be removed or merged with the Alvin and the chipmunks article. Yes the person who originally wrote the article has only done the one article but I am sure that if there were other aticles related to this topic she/he would work on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Split Personalities (talk • contribs) 02:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As a group owner and artist, I say keep. We try the sepeate the Chipmunks and Chipettes to make things simple. Most group for the Chipmunks are for the CHipmunks and CHipettes together like mine but sometimes tend to lean towards the chipettes. Other For the Chipettes have only material for the Chipettes or one of the girls. As speaking with the artist side, most artist I see on the imternet tend to drawn the Chi[pettes. Please, please get the Chipettes seperate. Captainchipmunk  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.99.6 (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Why was this article even nominated? How could wikipedia not have a Chipettes page? In what way is the number of articles contributed to by the page's author a factor? TruthfulPrince  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I concur with the decision to keep the article as is.The Chipettes have proven their popularity and longevity through the years and they deserve their singular place in Wikipedia.With so many memorable cartoon characters falling by the wayside in corporate media's headlong race to create empty, disposable characters to cash in on,we,as the personal caretakers of our varied childhoods,and of nostalgia,in general,must do what we can to honor those characters who stood out in our collective minds,in whatever capacity.Be they hero, heroine,or villian.If they stood the test of time,social change and the hardships of fickle Fate,then they should have a place,an article dedicated to them,not just to showcase,but to honor.


 * Keep Why Would Anyone Want To Delete Them!!! They Are The Female Counterparts Of The Chipmunks!!! SapientiaSativa 21:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Why would anyone want to shut this site down? It is fine just the way it is.  Between the Chipmunks and the Chipettes I've noticed that the Chipettes get the most attention in egroups and fansites.  The Seville Library tend to get more Chipette fanart and fanfiction stories submitted in.  It is only fair that they get their own Wikipedia page too. TheRavenChildca 23:05, 04 October, 2007  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, merge into Alvin and the Chipmunks. This article would do nicely on a Alvin and the Chipmunks or "cartoons"-themed Wiki, but there's not much one can say about the Chipettes that is suitable for Wikipedia. Most arguments to "keep" center around WP:ILIKEIT. I would like to remind the closing admin that AfD is not a vote. --Action Jackson IV 00:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My argument doesn't center around that. The Chipettes are well known cartoon characters.  In what way are they less wiki worthy than Kobra Khan, Orko, Cover Girl from GI Joe, or Brain from Inspector Gadget?  Please explain. The_General_Nikos  —Preceding unsigned comment added by General Nikos (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the admin needs any reminding that this is not a vote. At least as many valid points have been made by those who favor keeping the article as by those who favor merging or deleting it.General Nikos  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Cruftbane seems arbitrary in his definition of what contitutes "fancruft" (i.e. something of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question). The Chipettes are a far more wide-ranging phenomenon in pop culture than he seems to be aware of. Who is he, in his limited experience, to decide what is cruft and what is not? I, for example, am not a big anime enthusiast, and in acknowledgment of my dearth of knowledge in the area, I would never take it upon myself to purge wikipedia of anime related articles which I considered to be cruft. In my ignorance, I could be weeding out perfectly legitimate articles.  --Krb3141 01:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to Alvin and the Chipmunks; I like it too, but I don't think there's enough to say about them as a separate topic. -- tiny plastic Grey Knight  ?  16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but if Grimace has enough information to warrant an article, I bet there are people who know enough about the Chipettes to provide lots of useful information.--Krb3141 19:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Grimace does warrant its own article, actually. In fact, the article is currently flagged for merger!  Pages like Brain (Inspector Gadget) seem mergable too.  I mean, I watched these shows too, but I don't see why we can't discuss them in single articles and only split out where necessary.
 * I guess the issue then becomes, when is a fictional character significant enough to rate a stand-alone wiki article? The Chipettes are at least as significant as characters like Destro, the Baroness, Orko, and Odie from Garfield, and I don't believe that anyone would challenge the legitimacy of those articles..General Nikos


 * Comment: For the record, it doesn't look like anyone is actually endorsing deletion, but rather merger, which is quite different in that it preserves content. To editors voting for the status quo, would a merge be so bad?  Looking at the articles, we should be able to keep all the existing content with maybe a few formatting adjustments.  It's not like we can't split them out into their own article again if the section gets too large.  I understand it can be frustrating when things you've worked on end up on AfD, but honestly, half the time it turns into "Articles for Merge" ;-) -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   ?  08:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When I'm searching for information about the Chipettes, I don't want to have to read through an article about the Chipmunks (Alvin, Simon, Theodore) to find it. 69.118.38.175 15:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While I would like to assume good faith on everyone's part (and I do so for most of the editors involved on both sides of the discussion) it seems to me that the nomination was placed by someone who sees themselves as being on an "anti-cruft" crusade while they're not really qualified to be a judge of what's cruft and what isn't. In fact, their definition of "cruft" seems rather subjective and they were cited as an example of what not to do on the arguments to avoid page..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ILIKEIT#I_don.27t_like_it. This coupled with their flip response to my polite and well-intentioned post leads me to believe that the argument for deletion was advanced in ignorance and that the user who began the discussion was in fact endorsing deletion. The bottom line for me is that the Chipettes are significant, distinctive, and well-known enough cartoon characters to rate their own article (comprable to Destro or Galvatron), and that the article itself does not meet wikipedia's criteria for deletion.General Nikos  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The citation of "Cruftbane" on WP:IDONTLIKEIT was actually probably put in before he registered that name (and indeed may have given him the idea); if you look at some of the other fake quotations and their "users" you'll see what I mean (in fact, I wonder if this is why Cruftbane wants his userpage to remain a redlink?) I would feel happier about keeping the current location if there were something "produced" (notionally) by the Chipettes separately from the Chipmunks, or at least where they featured substantially more heavily than the latter (movie, spin-off TV series, album, etc).  I tried searching for something along those lines but couldn't find one.  If I've missed anything relevant please let me know, I'm amenable to changing my mind if I can be convinced. -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   ⊖  15:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's actually a fair point. In this regard, it should be noted that the creators of the Chipmunks cartoon actually changed the name of the show from "Alvin and the Chipmunks" to simply "The Chipmunks" in recognition of the growing importance of the Chipettes to the program, and that many episodes were produced which did not feature the male characters at all.  Also, some would argue that the Chipettes had the more prominent roles in the feature film The Chipmunk Adventure.  All that aside, however, how featured does a character have to be to rate their own article?  There was never an Orko show, or a Destro show, etc., but no one would argue that these characters aren't developed enough to rate their own article.  Why doesn't this apply to the Chipettes?.  P.S. - In terms of my citation of Cruftbane's history, it's only as germain to the discussion as my editing history is (i.e. limiting myself to this article). General Nikos


 * Keep Although they never had their own show, they certainly qualify as major characters and deserve a unique page on Wikipedia. Part of the fun of Wikipedia is browsing for things that formed part of your childhood, and I can't see why these memorable characters should be denied their own small place here. As was mentioned, they have a large base of fans who are not equally interested in the Chipmunks. Tamajinn21:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This AfD may have to be re-listed or extended, to get a better consensus. I was about to close and keep, but saw too many SPA's voting, and with my modicum of experience, I am being timid today.  No !vote. Anyone else out there? Bearian 15:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that, even taking SPAs and anonymous users into account, it still comes out a bit ahead for Keep. I wouldn't mind if you extend it (to see if I get a response to my question earlier), but I also wouldn't have a problem if you closed it.
 * For anyone wanting to stop it being relisted in the future, I should point out that it at least needs some reliable sources to indicate why they're significantly different (and by "reliable" I include "not a Yahoo group"), but that's an issue for further article improvement discussion; a lot of people have commented here that "there are lots of sources", so I'm sure they won't mind volunteering to do the legwork! ;-)
 * -- tiny plastic Grey Knight  ⊖  15:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, a fair point. I wouldn't mind at all!  In fact, I have some of the sources (quotes from the creators of the characters, etc.) saved on my HD.  If someone would show me how to add sources (footnotes, etc.) I'd be happy to do so.  For example

http://www.mediavillage.com/jmentr/2006/09/11/Jacki-09-11-06/

http://www.roctober.com/roctober/chipmunks.html

General Nikos


 * 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.