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 no consensus. Despite the complete lack of sources, there's no consenus to delete or merge the content. I'd recommend that editors continue a discussion of cleanup and sourcing, and discuss a merge to View Askewniverse#Notable characters Fences&Windows 17:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of View Askewniverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable list of characters. Notability is not established in the article, and no references are given, indicating that no usable independent study or survey of these characters has been made to establish notability. Not enough reliable and substantial third-party material exists to support a viable article. Mikeblas (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No opinion. If this article is deleted, make sure someone else cleans up the rest of the View Askewniverse character articles are also deleted as well. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and merge context into main articles Alan - talk 05:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Legitimate spinout article to keep the main article from growing too large. Edward321 (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There's enough secondary coverage out there for a good article. Here's one ref, although I don't care enough to add it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good reference for Silent Bob and his friend not for this list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Acceptable spin-out article. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep lists of characters from a series of notable works are generally notable, and there's no dispute that Kevin Smith's work is notable. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The relation between the characters is not strong. Many characters appear in only one film. We don't have list of characters that appeared in a single movie because their part is covered in the plot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cybercobr and Jclemens. This is an acceptable list of notable fictional characters. It is better to have one big article or list than a bunch of smaller ones, per WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First, this is not a single movie, a/c the main article, but a series of films & related books, etc., so this is the standard way to handle it. It is much clearer than scatterring it among the different short works, which is one alternative, and enormously better than writing a separate article about each. (But even if it were a single work, this should be the practice if the work is notable or complex enough to justify it--and if not, in a characters section in the article. . I agree that in many cases "we do not have lists of characters that appeared in a single movie" and that "their part is covered in the plot." This seems to be a local consensus of the film wikiproject, to prevent even a list of them, and i think it should be rejected. The coverage this way either in a list or separate article is far below what we do with other media, and I see no justification for it. Projects are subject to the general consensus.) DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a single movie but most of the characters appear only once. We have a policy in most TV series not to mention characters that appeared only once. Why follow a different approach here? Examples: "LaFours is a fictional character from the film, Mallrats", "Emma appears in a supporting role in Clerks II.", "Bartleby and Loki are two characters from Dogma.", etc. Especially the description of the last two characters seems to me like the plot of the film. This is confusing for the readers because it add extra weight to details that it shouldn't. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The article was formerly titled "minor characters." If we were to merge all of the other View Askew character articles (Jay and Silent Bob, Randal Graves, Dante Hicks, others), those appear in different media and in more than one movie. Jay and Bob appear in just about every movie, Randal and Dante in Clerks and Clerks II, and all four appear in the animated series and the comic books. I've been meaning to do it for some time but have not had much time to concentrate on the task. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay and Silent Bob are notable and they already have their article. I would prefer an article for them and not merge them with character which appear in a single film. Characters of the Clerks can also have their article because if they were developed in different media I guess they should be articles in magasines about then. I can't think of any article discussing any of the one-time characters of the films covered in the article above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to View Askewniverse. The characters are already listed there. This article serves as an excuse to regurgitate plot points, which, because it relies on primary sources and does not analyze the characters, is unencyclopedic. 208.59.120.194 (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to View Askewniverse. Remove unreferenced fancruft. Laudak (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2009 (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.