Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chumley Huffington

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 & Redirect to a list article - if anyone wants to do this, feel free, otherwise I will action it shortly. BLACKKITE 00:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chumley Huffington[edit]

Chumley Huffington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article and the below articles are only partially sourced using individual episodes and fansite info. No secondary sources are provided on any to establish real world notability. Mr.Z-man 08:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The below articles are included in this nomination:
  • Merge to a list of character article, per the guidelines of WP:FICT. I'm not finding, on a quick search, much to support the independent notability of these characters (though some of the non-reliable sources suggest that Chazz might be discussed enough by reviewers to justify his article), which means they fail the notability requirements of WP:FICT. Delete is, as always, the last resort for this sort of thing. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For character reception among viewers, fansites are perhaps a better option than they appear to be. ALL these characters have been discussed in depth on concerned sites that DO voice the opinions of the viewers. Bowsy (review me!) 18:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally fansites are considered to NOT be Wikipedia:Reliable sources - We have some standards regarding that. Official websites, websites of publishers, and newspaper reviewers are considered to be reliable. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fairly Strong Keep per WhisperToMe. It is hard to source notable TV characters while keeping it encyclopedic in tone. Merging these articles will make them suffer like it always does by removing almost everything or will simply be the pages (perhaps barring deck info, images) stuck onto one big list. Both options go against an encyclopedia so the best bet is to keep. However, Chumley's own article is forgivable to merge into the main list, but definitely Keep the others. Bowsy (review me!) 18:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bowsy, I said that it would be a keep if we found the sources - Well, certainly I am not in favor of deletion, but I am okay with merging them into one articles *unless* we can find nuggets of developmental info. It may be good to find a few secondary sources, but IMO what really counts is adding "real world" information, i.e. information about how the "real world" was involved with the character. If you find the creators of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX debating character traits, by all means that is "real world" info. Having articles with nothing but plot summary seems to go against the encyclopedic style. This info has to exist somewhere. Even if we merge now we can always separate them later once we find good info. Anyhow, Wikipedia's standards regarding fictional characters have changed. Please see: Wikipedia:FICT - FICT is disputed, though. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with him though, I've seen it happen, the articles get merged and lose most of their content, and eventually someone discusses splitting them back into seperate articles. Or, they keep their content and the page gets too long, and again splitting them back up is proposed. The Clawed One (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Articles can be split up once the sections become long enough as per WP:FICT - But plot summary no longer qualifies as justifiable material for splits. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is PLENTY of characterization info on the web so a split is ENTIRELY justifiable. The problem being that it appears the creators of the articles got too involved in plot summaries. There is still plenty on characterization. I have sen it myself. Bowsy (review me!) 11:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Personally, I think all the articles are in need of a good overhaul. One possibility is shifting all the plot content to the main arc articles, and stubbing and merging the character ones and only discuss their personality and their relationships to other characters. Explaining both does seem kind of redundant and it's more comprehensive to have it in in. On another note, it's nice to see the big three here. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am in complete agreement. There is LOADS on personalities/relationships for most of these characters ie. all but Huffington but particularly Adrian/Echo, Blair/Jaden, etc. There is also lots of info on the actual personalities. The plot sumaries should be cut and the articles stubbed, so as to encourage the addition of this material. Bowsy (review me!) 11:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a combination article on the characters, as usual, unless perhaps one or two of them are particularly notable. This should have bee dealt without outside AfD. DGG (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to a list article. RMHED (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that we should not merge the articles, as that would mean deleting all the past history of those pages in case we want to go back. We can always choose to merge later, but once we do, all that history is lost. Furthermore, many of these are very significant characters. I mean, Chumley/Hayato is justified, but all the others play major roles, and some, like Atticus/Fubuki are starting to get major development as of recently, in this 'Darkness' arc. (Yalens)

(Yalens) —Preceding comment was added at 00:17, 17 February 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chumley_Huffington&oldid=1137714611"