Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dexter's Laboratory 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. After two relists, opinions are still split between deleting, redirecting, merging and keeping. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dexter's Laboratory characters[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The reference tag is incorrect--there are no references at all on this page. The main article adequately sums up any relevant and noteworthy information in this article. The contents of this article would be more welcome on a Wikia page, but not WP. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 09:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question are recurring/secondary characters not enough to warrant a character page? They obviously have smaller roles than the main 5, who I can imagine being adequately covered in main page, but I don't know how the others could be sufficiently addressed there if not here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact they are recurring/secondary characters usually means they do not have the coverage necessary to cover them outside the plot of the series (which is captured on the lists of episodes). It's one of my rules of thumb that where a list of characters includes these kinds, that they should probably be removed, barring someone showing up with reliable independent sources to indicate their significance. --Izno (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "main 5" characters (Dexter, Dee Dee, Mom, Dad, and Mandark) are indeed adequately covered in the parent article's premise section. In fact, the section includes specific information, such as the quotes about Dexter's accent, that the character list peculiarly does not. Monkey and The Justice Friends group, who both have their own series-within-a-series segments, are also described in the main article's premise section. Other secondary characters are very minor, only showing up in a handful of episodes or filler segments. Their notability does not extend past the episodes they are featured in. To answer your question, no. Having secondary characters in a TV series does not itself justify the existence of a separate character list article. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 09:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'll have to oppose this. There is some misunderstanding of how notability relates to list articles. Per Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. I agree that the article should be sourced, and I'm highly skeptical that there is not even one source that talks about characters from this series which received widespread critical acclaim and high ratings, and became one of Cartoon Network's most popular original series (according to the lead int he parent article). I'll even say that the lead article does a bad job in presenting the characters, I was looking at the ToC and it isn't even mentioned there. Also, creating redirects to specific entries in that prose is impossible, so linking to characters is meaningless. --Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right to be skeptical based on the main article's prose, but extensive research I've done in Internet and print media has turned up with very little or nothing at all regarding characters exclusive to the character list, who are minor and insignificant. The sources in the main article were the best I could come up with when I nominated it for GA in 2013, and nothing has really changed since then. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 08:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAF is important here. Lists of non-fictional entities have a mostly-different bar to meet than lists of fictional entities. Almost always, lists of fictional entities devolve into WP:NOTPLOT violations. Here's my favorite example (which was actually worse even before that because there was a "list of minor characters" hanging around); here's that same article today. --Izno (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Dexter's Laboratory. The current article here does not justify a stand-alone article. Now, there's likely to be "push-back" against creating a 'Characters' section at Dexter's Laboratory, because it's a WP:GA, but that's a truly lousy excuse. In fact, it's a pet peeve of mine that it's somehow concluded that WP:TV GA's "shouldn't have" a 'Cast' or 'Characters' section – that's total bunk. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as appropriate to give correct WP:WEIGHT to the topic matter. Likely, that means a simple redirect but may indicate some partial merging. --Izno (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources = no article, per WP:V. Sandstein 12:31, 27 November 2018 (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.