Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ctrl+Alt+Del 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 Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ctrl+Alt+Del characters

This page is pure fancruft. It has no good references to exert notability because they are all primary sources. The characters that need to be described are already amply covered here. Artichoker[talk] 15:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is entirely in-universe plot summary. JohnCD (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly long list of characters with limited real world relevance. JuJube (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character lists are legitimate spinout articles to keep the main article from growing too long. Edward321 (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is no excuse for being completely unencyclopedic and in-universe. First of all, the parent article (Ctrl+Alt+Del) is not too long, and a character list could be added if needed. Secondly, this list doesn't need to document every single character that has ever appear in the comics, only the major ones should be included, and those are already in the main article. Artichoker[talk] 23:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even as a fan I don't think this list needs to be here. The main characters, and recurring minor characters can easily be accomodated in the main article about the comic. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "list of ...... characters" generally should not have its own article unless the main ficitonal work article is too long and all the content meets WP:NOT and three content policies, just as Japanese Wikipedia does. I think we can later refer to Japanese Wikipedia when dealing deletion disputes related to fictional characters, places, events or other things. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. In fact, lack of any coverage that is independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). WP:ITSCRUFT is never an acceptable reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well WP:N certainly is. Artichoker[talk] 20:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fortunately, these meet that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Umm, no they don't? The references are composed entirely of self-published sources which do not show real-world notability. I fail to see how this therefore passes WP:N. Please provide some rationale. Artichoker[talk] 23:36, 11 August 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.