Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ed, Edd n Eddy 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 keep. Courcelles 13:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters[edit]

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

This list has completely has no references. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 09:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no valid rationale for deletion from nominator. We do not delete articles for not having any/enough references. That is what the {{Unreferenced}} tag is for on the article. We delete articles if they do not meet the criteria for inclusion, particularly the notability guidelines which I think this may just meet. It could perhaps be merged into the main page but all in all, it needs some work on it, not deletion. Woody (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have serious doubt that no sources exist for these characters. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As others (above) has said, the articles are not deleted because they don't have references. The article does need some work, nothing un-fixable, just regular maintenance. IMDB usually has a substantial list of the cast, characters, crew. I don't think the article deserves deletion, it meets most of the Wiki standards from what i read. Dusty777 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDB is not a reliable source because some of it is user-submitted. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tag it with an unref tag then. There is no valid reason for deletion. JJ98, please stop lising "List of (show on Turner animated property)" articles here for tenuous or shaky reasonings that don't meet AfD guidelines. Nate • (chatter) 23:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Primary sources can establish V for fictional elements, and since this list relies on notability of the parent show, notability is not an issue here. Per OUTCOMES, we merge trivial fictional character articles into lists just like this one... so, as has been said above, please tag it or fix it, but no one commenting here to date believes that this article cannot be made compliant with inclusion criteria through normal editing. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The list is an unnecessary split of Ed, Edd n Eddy, which has an article size of 21 KB, below the recommended article size to justify the split of unreferenced and plot-only content. As a stand-alone list, there is no evidence that the list meets 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. Neither the list topic nor the individual characters meet the general notability guideline. Since the content of the list is a plot-only description of a fictional work, the list falls into what Wikipedia is not, so it is not acceptable per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists either. Without references, a great deal of the content is original research by synthesis and the article does not have verifiability, so I do not think that anything from the article is worth keeping. Jfgslo (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would call for at most a merge result, not deletion, given that the main article doesn't retain any of this list's content. We don't delete "unnecessary splits"; we unsplit them. The rest of your statements are not consistent with the demonstrated consensus for lists of this kind: AFDs for lists of TV series characters have been repeatedly closed as "keep" regardless of whether such lists could be viewed as "plot-only", and even if only primary sources are available that does not prevent them from being verifiable. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens, and if Jj98 keeps starting these inappropriate AFDs we will need to have another ANI discussion (though I don't think the first one was ever resolved). postdlf (talk) 15:28, 13 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.