Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Shimmer and Shine 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. SoWhy 07:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shimmer and Shine characters

List of Shimmer and Shine characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable OR, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unsourced sprawling fancruft. Any major characters can be mentioned briefly in the show's article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge while trimming appropriately back into the main series article, which is far shorter than this. I'll note that both the nom and the above !vote, and any subsequent !votes that do not explain why WP:ATD-M should not apply are not policy-based and should be discarded by the closer. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note:ATD-M discusses "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded", which doesn't seem to be a problem here. Further, it discusses what "could be" or is "generally" done, not what "should" or "must" be done. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A selective merge would seem appropriate as the main article does not contain any information on the characters. I would also be okay with a delete, but some of the information from this list would somewhat be beneficial for the parent article. I am in agreement with Jclemens on this one. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge seems reasonable for a popular multi season show to have a character list. Artw (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Shimmer and Shine, the section needs to be copy-edited as well. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article, undo the edit removing the list from the main article and edit the section down to a reasonable size. There is no indication of notability outside of the series or a need for this extensive compilation of in-universe material. A substantially shorter listing would be appropriate in the main article. Normally, that would be a selective merge. However, this article was created with an unattributed copy-paste from the main article.[1][2] Merging or selectively merging material back to the main article would further compound the problem. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So rather than merge, revert the spinout? Sounds reasonable. How about we do that and leave a redirect in place? Is there any reason to not do that, given that redirects are cheap? Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, given the number of "List of _________ characters" articles we have, this is a reasonable redirect. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a summary to TV show. Let's face it, this is 99.9% OR fancruft. Some summary of the characters is useful for the plot, etc., but there is a point we reach pure OR and facrufting, and it is clear this is way past it here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly not standalone notable, and far too voluminous and unsourced to merge. We should just delete obvious fancruft because its presence deters from writing actual encyclopedic prose instead.  Sandstein  05:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unless notability is established, there is no need for it to exist. There is no need to merge it unless the content is deemed important enough to salvage. TTN (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is 2006-vintage show cruft about a kid's show and its characters for sure. You can pretty much be sure no six year-old is reading this to find out the 20-sentence character description and motivations of "Genies". Nate • (chatter) 06:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- excessive fancruft, mostly overdetailed plot summary written in an in-universe style, and with virtually no sources. There is no chance that any of this stuff could be usefully merged anywhere. Reyk _YO! 09:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Almost entirely unsourced. Fails WP:V. You can't merge unsourced material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2017 (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.