Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters who rarely speak

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 delete. Isotope's comments on verifiability and arbitrariness of the selection criteria really carry the day here. Oh, and those of you who said "listcruft" and nothing else (including, tch, the nominator): you will put down a small item of value and then find you can't remember where it is, and when that happens, you will remember this moment and think, "Gosh, I wish I'd put more thought into what I was going to write in that AfD discussion, then maybe I'd know where I left my housekey." fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters who rarely speak

Listcruft. —tregoweth (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't imagine anyone ever needing to use this list. --ben 06:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is a strong precedent for lists like this; there are many existing lists similar to it in "value"; and there is nothing particularly problematic about this one. "Potential usefulness" is a vague criterion that could easily wipe out half of all WP articles. Outriggr 07:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncompletable, not usefull list. Medico80 07:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Where else could they be mentioned? JIP | Talk 09:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Wikipedia is not paper. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs cleanup/clarification: Snoopy, for example, talks quite a lot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snoopy has never spoken a word. His comments are rendered in thought balloons, not speech. That Woodstock seems to understand his thoughts is simply a bit of Schulz' artistic license. wikipediatrix 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be able to talk to most animal characters. He and his brothers (Spike, Olaf, etc) can talk to each other, for example. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified original research. No sources are cited, so I can only assume this was created via original research. Beyond that, it is yet another list based on very vague criteria ("rarely" is not quantifiable... who determines how often a character has to speak before they are no longer considered to speak "rarely"). It has nothing to do with the value of the list or how interesting it is... If it is not sourced it should go and I suspect that editors would be hard pressed to find sources that backup the contention that most of the included characters on this list "speak rarely".--Isotope23 15:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...or List of characters who speak a lot :-) I perfectly agree. And even if someone can prove that the character speaks "rarely" there still is a problem with criteria for inclusion, because there are infinetly many silent characters. Does Pingu speak? Medico80 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all similar lists. All fictional characters have some sort of personal attributes, and endlessly filling Wikipedia with useless lists of them serves no encyclopedic purpose that I can see. These lists do not establish notability for why these indiscrimate collections of information deserve to be tallied as lists in article form. wikipediatrix 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isotope23 --Astrokey44 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List without objective criteria. Cdcon 16:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Isotope. This is not encyclopedic, it is indiscriminate, and does not support any article. If this AfD succeeds, the redirect (List Of Characters Who Rarely Speak) ought to be deleted, too. Agent 86 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this list is essentially a mish-mash of unrelated fictional creations - non-talking animals (wow!), silent protagonists, aliens and henchmen. What the heck has Gordon Freeman got to do with Wile E Coyote? --Nydas 18:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, delete, delete. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 19:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article doesn't hurt anyone. - Richardcavell 23:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful to keep track of characters who apparently speak, but whose silence has become a running gag. Gazpacho 01:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopaedic, WP not a collection of indiscriminate list info, etc. Just delete. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Listcruft of no value whatsoever. The one and only article that links to this page simply has it as an addon in the "see also" section. Highly unlikely anyone would search for such a term. Resolute 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure listcruft, and how often is rarely anyways: OR with a taste of POV. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 05:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Isotope23,Wikipediatrix, Agent86 and Nydas, among others. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Encephalon 17:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per many good delete reasons given. - David Oberst 04:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, and indiscriminate: what is "rarely"? Sandstein 19:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft. Zaxem 08:50, 17 August 2006 (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.