Wiki How:Articles for deletion/List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit 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 There's certainly no consensus to delete and any merge proposal is best discussed on the article talk page. (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Excessive list of characters from a single film. Unnecessary to have a standalone list, which simply repeats the film plot with extraneous details and adds WP:OR. Notable characters already have their own articles and easily be linked to from the main article's plot and/or character section. List fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and is not in line with the Film MOS, which does not even recommend a character section for films. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The standard way of dealing with less notable characters is to merge them into a list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, for serials like television series, film series, novel series, etc. But a single film? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, actually. Most Disney films (for example) not only have list pages, but often individual articles for the characters. - jc37 05:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, considering the outright hideous state of most Disney films, they aren't really the best example to point to. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Afd is not cleanup... - jc37 05:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously, which is why those Disney film articles are not here. That does not, however, mean one can not note that pointing to BAD examples does not somehow make this list okay (i.e. no claims of WP:ITEXISTS). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I was actually referring to this nom. - jc37 08:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Much of the content is in-universe plot summary. McWomble (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, the only reason I created the list was because it used to be separate articles for each character. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the film 70.55.86.100 (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the film article, as this information is notable and relates to a notable, groundbreaking film ... but mainly because the person who created this article in the first place (and who did so to reduce individual character articles) supports merge. 23skidoo (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Discuss the merge at the poroper place, which is not here. personally, i don't hink it makes any difference as long as material is not lostDGG (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My understanding is "Merge" is considered one of the options on AFD, therefore this is the appropriate place to discuss it as a legitimate alternative to deletion; now that an AFD is underway it's too late to discuss it at the article level. 23skidoo (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's never "too late" to discuss "at the article level". - jc37 17:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:LIST. This is simply a character list. And merging to Who Framed Roger Rabbit will merely have the list re-split due to WP:SIZE and WP:SS. - jc37 05:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  How so? Considering that films, in general, should not even HAVE character lists, this list never should have existed. If remerged back to the film, it will be reduced greatly, if not eventually removed all together as not being an appropriate part of a well-formed film article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Shouldn't have character lists? Why not? I would think a list of characters in a film or novel (or whatever other fictional presentation), would indeed be an aid to readers, regardless of where the list resides. That is the goal after all, to aid readers. Not to conform to IDONTWANTIT or WP:CRUFT. - jc37 05:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:MOSFILM. Note there is no character section at all. A film (and a singular novel for that matter) is short enough that the pertinent information about characters should be covered in the plot section. It is not the same as serial work, like a television series or a series of novels, where character information needs to be summarized from multiple episodes/volumes/etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with your position is that films (and their characters), just like any work of fiction, vary in the public psyche. (And therefore vary in relevance, which directly leads us to WP:N.) And especially in the case of Disney characters.

  And this is particularly relevant when one considers that this film is nearly entirely referential to such pop culture phenomenon, to even include characters which are not owned by Disney/Touchstone.

  Note also that these characters have appearances outside the initial film, including appearances on television shows. (I also wonder if you're ignoring the film shorts as irrelevant, and not considering them a part of the "franchise"?) - jc37 08:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable and verifiable. Necessary.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup per jc37. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Who Framed Roger Rabbit main article and drastically cut the text down to a level appropriate for an encyclopedia entry in the process. As it is, there is too much plot summary embedded in the character list article. Making appropriate cuts will also prevent it from being split out again. Keeping this as a stand-alone article could be seen as setting a precedent for every film article to have a separate "list of characters" article which is unnecessary for encyclopedia coverage. Amazinglarry (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one the basis of the argument which happens to be exemplified in the above comment, an argument that represents what i fear the most about thee nominations: the explicit attempt to remove content. When I commented above that i didn't care whether it was a separate article or not, it was on the basis that it didn't matter where the content was to be kept. But apparently at least some of those wanting to merge do indeed see it as a way of removing the content, not keeping it, and are indeed using merge with the actual meaning of delete. This is content which is perfectly appropriate for a such a landmark film, content sourceable to the primary source for the material and therefore encyclopedic. This is just what should be included in substantial detail in the Wikipedia coverage of important fiction. DGG (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep It's heavy on in-universe perspective, but if we could improve sourcing and trim the bloat it could be half-decent. Fletcher (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alexnia (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looks like you closed discussion four hours ago. Stand by your decision, and don't second-guess yourself. Mandsford (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • look at my talk page and the talkpage of this afd; the nominator didn't like my Nac Keep Alexnia (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexnia's non-admin closure (as "keep") was discussed on xyr talk page (q.v.). I've completed xyr re-opening. Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sttrong Keep This seems like the sensible way to deal with characters. It's a lot better than having an article on each one. And there's too much information to incorporate in the main article. I hope the main article links to this list though! ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is there too much information (if all the plot regurgitation is removed)? Most of it isn't even sourced, but thinks like character creation belongs in the main article's production section anyway. Nor is the content of the list appropriate for a film article, making it a bad split. Even its creator has now said it should be merged. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You hit on my problem with trying to merge when you said, "Nor is the content of the list appropriate for a film article". This is an article on the characters not the film. If people have an interest in that subject, and it appears they do, I've concluded it makes the encyclopedia better and more complete to include this information. It's peer reviewed (like all articles here), so hopefully bad information will be culled, even though references are a problem. I think many of us have a traditional view of what information is appropriate to an encyclopedia. But who is to say that pop-culture characters are less encyclopedic than arcane political figures, math topics, or scientific obscurities? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Who Framed Roger Rabbit and eliminate "in-universe" description of characters per WP:MOSFILM. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to film. There is some content here that probably should be kept (and I'd really like to see the list of licensed toons keep around but needs to be sources, since that is a relevant aspect of the film). Most of the character bios duplicate information in the movie, and if these were rewritten as most good/features film articles (2 to 5/6 sentenses about each), it would fit nicely into the film article. Some information will be lost (for example, the entire Doom Patrol character list is rather weighty given how bit a part they play) but all these characters can still be listed in the article. --MASEM 19:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The list is not notable, it's characters from a single film, there is no real world information here that couldn't (most likely already is) be on the film page. The reason this page is in existence is to hold unnecessarily detailed plot descriptions, original research about the characters. This is not the reason acceptance of character lists was given. Character lists are necessary when you have a series of films, not a single film where all key characters can be mentioned on that page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong merge - we've been rather strong in the past (and AfD tends to confirm this) about merging characters who only appear signficantly in a single work back into the article on the work itself. As for the content itself - there's nothing of real-world relevance that should not appear on the film's article, while the in-universe material should be adequately summed up within the film's plot section. All other in-universe information is essentially trivia from the real-world perspective, and should not be content-forked in order to provide justification for inclusion within a separate characters page or pages. There's no logical argument for character information consolidation on a character page unless the information runs across multiple works - otherwise, the consolidation belongs with the film article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:14, 11 November 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.