Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chuggington 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 merge to Chuggington. v/r - T P 19:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chuggington characters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep. This page was prodded at 04:47, 6 July 2011 by User:207.255.69.226 as "Nonnotable. What little information may be considered notable is also found at Chuggington.", but there is much info in this article which is not in article Chuggington; I changed the prodding to an AfD to get it properly discussed. As regards whether or not this info is noteworthy :: often one man's cruft or trivia is another man's important relevant matter: e.g. I have no interest in football, but I do not go around deleting football articles. Some people want this information; Star Trek and Star Wars and Pokemon and Harry Potter etc each has its own wiki for neutral non-advertisory third-party information about its scenario and characters, but the Chuggington series does not. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As regards references, surely the Chuggington series is the reference? It is plentifully available for watching in television channels. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is really necessary to do this just because an IP prodded the page. I suggest a Speedy Keep per Wikipedia:Speedy keep criterion #1. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The Chuggington article only covers the three main characters. Better to have a list of recurring characters than an individual article for each one as would be found on a fan wiki. --Canley (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The list is an unnecessary split of Chuggington, which has an article size of 11 KB, below the recommended article size to justify the split of plot-only content. The list, as a stand-alone list topic, does not meet the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists as the list topic has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and all that is provided in the article are primary sources. Without providing real-world context reception or significance, the list of characters is a plot-only description of a fictional work, so the list falls into what Wikipedia is not, not suitable for the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. As the fictional characters do not have relevance beyond the TV series, the article should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.