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. Lists are the preferred method of dealing with non-notable fictional characters. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of M.I.High Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Those characters in this list that are notable are already covered to the same depth in the parent article, M.I.High. The rest aren't particularly notable at all - many made only one appearence on the show. Added to that is the fact that the list is completely unreferenced, and bordering on fancruft. _TalkIslander 09:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The list of characters should be listed in the show's artcile (like wub stated). Any detailed information about each character should be placed in its own article about the respective character. OlYeller^Talktome 09:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm all for character lists, but they have to be verifiable at minimum which these aren't. (In this case one-off villains are also better described in episode articles so they have context) -- Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The list is already in the main article, so I don't know that it needs to be spun off. The day may come for the article to be divided up into characters and episode lists, though I'm not sure that it's here yet. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• MergeDelete back with M.I.High. Keep the main characters as they are, ditch the minor characters, such as most of the agents. Themfromspace (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So that's basically a delete then? All the main characters are already fully included in the main article, and were in fact copied from there in many cases (e.g. the Grand Master). There is nothing to merge that isn't already there... _TalkIslander 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose the semantics are different, so I'll support whatever gets it done. Themfromspace (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looking at the main article, I find it rather long and unusual. Normally the character information is placed in a separate article, as are chapter/episode list. Its long enough with enough detail to warrant its own page. Dream Focus 10:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is the place we will send all the crap articles about the individual characters. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't have articles that behave like recycling bins... if a character isn't notable enough to have it's own article, it can be accomodated in the parent article, assuming that it's notable enough for that. _TalkIslander 19:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a deletionist, but the "list of" articles is where we send these non-notable fictional bios when they turn up. That's how we appease the inclusionists, if we start deleting the "list of"'s they'll just start recreating the bios. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if this is tongue in cheek or if you're serious about keeping the place where you send the "crap articles". Themfromspace (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is serious, although I must admit my delivery isn't very ;) On a more "serious" note, a lot of inclusionists concede the deletion of those rubbish fictional bio articles, if the "relevant" data is merged to a "list of characters" page. Where's DGG when I need him??? ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for why I did not see this, you must blame the nominator. I had originally deprodded the article, and he was bound by at least courtesy if not strict requirements to notify me; I will AGF, and suppose he had never realized this, although he's been here about as long as I have. DGG (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly no strict requirements. As for courtesy? Perhaps, in which case I'm sorry, but if I prod something, and the prod tag is removed, you must surely realise that I will take it to AfD. I wouldn't prod it in the first case if I didn't believe it deserved deletion. With that in mind, it's kinda your responsibility to keep an eye on the article. _TalkIslander 14:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for me, if I prod something and the prod tag is removed, I do not necessarily take it to Afd. I consider the arguments first. Very often I find the objection reasonable, or a promise of improvement worth waiting for. One of the purposes of a prod is to see if there is any serious defense, or if there is any attention being paid to a dubious article. i've always thought of it as a pun, a way to "prod" the people concerned into action. If it does it meets the goal even better than if the article is deleted.

And when I deprod, I do because i think there's a good reason not to, and I expect that to be at least taken into account. e person who placed the prod to consider the matter again. Please do not take it personally, but it is automatic inflexible approaches which are my evidence that it should be required. DGG (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Major characters are covered elsewhere. Notability is not established via reliable third party sources for these minor characters. The article is merely a listing of plot tidbits and in-universe details. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the preferred way of handling these. Notability does not have to be established for the individual characters in such a list. It would be quite irrational if it were, because if they were notable, they would go in separate articles. I point out to those wanting to delete articles like this, that the only chance of establishing any consensus at all at WP:FICT is through the use of compromise intermediate solutions such as this. If there is any difficulty in preserving such articles, the chance of consensus will be lost entirely. DGG (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability does have to be established for the subject of the article. Lists are articles too and must abide by the notability guidelines, this is explicitly stated in WP:STAND. Unless the list of M.I.High characters is in itself notable (third party sources and the like) there can't be an article about it. Themfromspace (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so you think that we need to establish that the making of lists of characters in this series has been written about by outside sources? That we need to find sources discussing just which characters should go on such a list? DGG (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to your first statement, according to Wikipedia policy, that's just what should be done. The second doesn't necessarily derive as a must from the first, although it wouldn't hurt at all. What belongs in the list is a different question than whether the list itself should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Themfromspace (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep standard listifying of non individually notable characters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I would go through and really determine who is important to the series and who isn't. Not every character needs to be on a list.じんない 03:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per DGG. It appears that even lists are not immune from deletion now. So much for the great FICT comprimise. Ikip (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why on Earth should anything be "immune to deletion"? That stance is entirely unsupported by pretty much all current wiki policy. _TalkIslander 14:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per DGG and current wiki practice/consensus. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the list as compromise between "all fictional characters deserve stand-alone wikipedia articles" and "everything without third-party sources must be nuked from wikipedia". – sgeureka ^t•c 11:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. List of M.I.High Characters cannot be considered in isolation from M.I.High. Currently, the combination of both articles represents low quality content, but it can be improved. See Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, and let interested editors work to improve it. Reading WP:WAF would be a good start. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this list is completely unsourced, provides no evidence of notability and fails WP:NOT#PLOT on account of a complete lack of real-world content which can be used to support an encyclopedic article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a notable TV show. It needs improvement and lots of citations, but you can't improve a deleted article.

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.