Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Shrek 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shrek characters

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

FANDOM-esque crufty repository of original research. Maintenance tags have been in place for ten years. Notable characters already have their own articles; those appearing in only a single film are described in the respective film articles, thus obviating any need for a centralized list. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Comics and animation, and Lists. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Shrek franchise (including spin-offs like Puss in Boots) is pretty huge. I have a couple reservations about deleting this page, mainly that it arguably meets a few criteria of WP:NLIST. Namely, since many characters have pages, it serves as a centralized navigation page. I also think there are some examples where the characters "have been discussed as a set" (such as in DreamWorks Animation: Intertextuality and Aesthetics in Shrek and Beyond or Investigating Shrek: Power, Identity, and Ideology). There are a lot of scholarly books on Shrek. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shrek characters already acts as centralized navigation for prominent characters. Other characters are either negligible in terms of relative coverage, or only associated with single films in the franchise. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTDUP! Categories, templates, and lists do not affect the existence of each other. And "negligible" does not mean "non-existent"; if a character should not be included in the list, that is an editing decision. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not arguing to delete it on the basis that a similar category exists. Just saying that if readers were to look for "centralized navigation" after this list is deleted, there will always still be the category. Regarding your second point; the decision might be editorial, but once you remove undue info from that list, the question becomes what remains that is worth keeping? At that point, I'd just refer to standalone articles. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does the average Wikipedia user (read: not editor) even use categories all that much? I know that I don't. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 13:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that, while categories are of much use to Wikipedia editors, they are likely ignored by users for the most part and forward facing lists are far more important for that purpose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Notable characters already have their own articles" is an admission that this is precisely the sort of list encompassed in WP:LSC: While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Excessive or unsupported detail and and should be solved through editing. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another nomination that is part of an overall trend of trying to get rid of all character lists on Wikipedia without doing any BEFORE.★Trekker (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Valid nav page; AfD is not cleanup. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 14:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough articles have their own article to be a valid navigational and information list.

Any concerns can be discussed on the talk page, and dealt with by normal editing procedures. Dream Focus 16:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NEXIST, and, like, a lot of Shrek characters are individually and provably notable, as can be seen on their respective pages. Which is to be expected of one of the biggest animation series of all time. Perhaps WP:SOFIXIT is merited instead, I did my part by rescuing 2 character articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't imagine this doesn't meet WP:NLIST. If I am wrong, ping me with the counterargument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 8 March 2023 (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.