Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvin's alter egos (Calvin and Hobbes)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Calvin's alter egos (Calvin and Hobbes) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Indiscriminate list of calvin's "alter egos", listing everything he's ever pretended to be. Concepts like Spaceman Spiff and Stupendous Man are already in the main article on Calvin, while the rest should be jettisoned. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I created this article around 16 or so months ago by simply copy/pasting content from the article about Calvin himself. I then severely cut down the section about Calvin's alter-egos in the article about Calvin himself. While I will not object if this article is deleted, all the content in this article was in the article about Calvin before I split it into a new article due to its length. If I had not done this, it seems unlikely that this discussion would be taking place. J.delanoygabsadds 22:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Spinning off sub-articles on topics that are too large to fit in one page is standard summary style article editing. There are notability concerns -- just how notable is "Adult Calvin" anyway? -- but in keeping with summary style, I don't see a need to delete this. --GoodDamon 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you consider this to be indiscriminate? There are very clear boundaries to this list - which indiscriminate lists don't have. - Mgm|(talk) 23:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it lists every freaking single alter eago, including one shots. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I disagree that including all of them is a problem, if you think it is , just remove the superfluous ones. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. J.delanoygabsadds 00:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are going to call WP an Encyclopedia, then yes, we should include every alter-ego my favorite little problem child has. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 12:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - I think the whole thing should be merged into the main Calvin article. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 5, 2008 @ 01:05
- Merge-As J.delonay said above, the article will become severely damaged without this page. Merge it, and the information will be retained. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 18:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- semi-Strong Keep - any Merge would bloat the Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) into unreadability. And if the "superfluous" alter-ego's were deleted/trimmed out, then surely the Article would end up with a permanent Template:Incomplete on it, which is the opposite of what any encyclopedia is attempting to do. Does just fine as a spin-out Article. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - I like the page and I don't think there's anything wrong with providing a list of characters for Calvin as a separate page for clarity. Khidhir (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:ILIKEIT. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as it is well-written on a subject of sufficient notability. I would agree some of the one-offs can be removed without hurting the article, and perhaps even helping it, but let's not delete the entire thing because of that small problem. Frank | talk 08:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Congratulations to J.delanoy for spinning off this article. I have just read it for the first time, and I completely agree that it seems like a good candidate for a spin-off. Geo Swan (talk) 22:17, 8 December 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.