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. However, I plan to (as an editor) merge some of these articles into List of minor characters in Danny Phantom. It's obvious that there's consensus to keep major characters as separate articles, but unless someone can give me a good reason why each minor character deserves its own article, I will merge the minor characters into one list. Ral315 (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If this reasoning were carried to it's logical conclusion, almost every television character would be removed from Wikipedia. CovenantD21:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't deserve an article, then yes, they would get deleted. But Danny Phantom is NOT a huge show, not nearly as big of a show as SpongeBob or even Fairly OddParents. If we were to compare Danny Phantom to Chris Noth's character on Law & Order, he wouldn't even come close to being as deserving. My logic is that the only reason they're on WP is because a fan of the series wanted them to be on it, not because they thought that all of these characters were notable enough (many characters likely were put up for the first reason, but they survive because they pass the second). Danny Phantom has little exposure outside of the source material. - A Link to the Past(talk)21:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
B.S. Thats the biggest load of it I heard in a long time. Sorry, but saying that it hardly has any media attention besides the source material is something that should have [citation needed] next to it. — Moe21:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? It seems like your reasoning is based more on the fact that you don't like the show and don't personally think it noteworthy. I'll admit that in places the articles are perhaps more indepth than necessary, particularly for more minor characters, but nowhere in my browse of WP:NOT did I see that it's not a place to put information about a TV show, favorite or otherwise. --Jace Draccus21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:FICT and my hatred of mass AfDs like this. I would argue some characters (like Undergrowth (Danny Phantom) who only appeared in one episode of the series) probably should be merged to List of Danny Phantom characters or another appropriate list, but many of these characters have appeared in many episodes and are not the stubs I expected, and so deserve individual discussion. At any rate, AfD is not for mergers. BryanG(talk)21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, I never proposed merging. If you feel some should be merged, then be my guest. And, the guideline you cite actually supports my logic. Danny Phantom, Tucker Foley and Samantha Manson can exist in a list of characters. There is no pressing need for them to have articles. - A Link to the Past(talk)21:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting a merge might be worthwhile, not you. WP:FICT explicitly states major characters such as Danny Phantom can have their own article if the main article about the show would be too long, which it certainly would be. As for merging the rest to a list, I'm not going to arbitrarily determine the cutoff of which villains are "major" and which are "minor" by myself. Could they be written more encyclopedic? Certainly, but a need for cleanup is not a reason for deletion. Besides, where does WP:FICT say these articles should be deleted, either? BryanG(talk)21:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Danny Phantom hardly needs to be separate. Most of the content in his article does not need mention, especially indepth analysis of his relationships and a list of all of his powers. - A Link to the Past(talk)22:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main character on a notable TV show deserves it's own article. All the main characters, Danny Phantom (character), Tucker_Foley and Sam Manson should have thier own article if they have sufficent information on them. Citing that they aren't popular isn't going to cut it. The rest of them I don't care about, so they should have thier own article for minor characters. But the main characters are a must. — Moe21:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He (refering the the character and the cartoon) is just as popular as any other cartoon character like Spongebob and Fairly Oddparents. — Moe21:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One, SpongeBob SquarePants gets more than 6 million Google results. SpongeBob is a huge show, which appeals to young and old alike. And while DP appeals to many including me, it's just not nearly as notable. And the Google results are skewed - the possibilities of Danny and Phantom appearing in the same page but not referring to Danny Phantom are significantly higher than someone saying Fairly and Oddparents, but not meaning to say Fairly Oddparents. SpongeBob warrants a page because of his massive popularity. Danny is not nearly as big or as notable, so why does he need to be separate from a list of the main article? Is there a pressing need for him to be separate? Hell, why do these other characters need to be? - A Link to the Past(talk)21:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Searching it the way I did "Danny Phantom" (notice the quotation marks) hits only for exact matches, not askewed ones. Sure Danny Phantom isn't as popular as Spongebob, (which recent cartoons are more popular?), but is Danny Phantom notable enough for Wikipedia, with that many exact google hits, yes. — Moe22:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One, you stated he was as notable as SpongeBob, when he clearly is not. Two, a Google search for Danny Phantom is evidence that the cartoon is notable, not that the character is. Danny Phantom does not transcend his source material. If Danny Phantom warrants an article, then why don't King of All Cosmos, various Advance Wars characters and Blue from Pokémon (significantly more notable than SpongeBob x1000)? - A Link to the Past(talk)22:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said he wasn't as popular. Popularity comes in all shapes and sizes. Popularity does NOT equal notability. Personally, I'm not in favor of President Bush as many people aren't, which makes him unpopular, but his notablilty doesn't lower because of it. Why doesn't all the characters from Pokemon have an article? Because most Pokemon only make one-time appearances. Only popular Pokemon like Pikachu should have articles, if there is sufficant information enough to withstand it's own article. If it's going to be a short little stub, merge it. Ash and other characters that are major characters should have thier own article (I haven't checked to see if they did or not though). Minor characters from Danny Phantom should be merged onto one page. Major characters that have lenghty articles that describe different ascpets of a character does merit it's own article. And your comment that a Google search on Danny Phantom equal that the cartoon is popular, but not the character is completely ludacris. Who the fuck do you think a cartoon named "Danny Phantom" is going to be about? — Moe22:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A link to Danny Phantom (character)'s article and a brief description on the characters page is all thats needed, but to have a in-depth article just because it doesn't meet your insane qualifications of notablilty doesn't mean we should delete it. — Moe23:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you listen to a word anyone says? I said you could merge minor characters and things to one page, I don't give a fuck about that. Your arguing the main character should be deleted, which it shouldn't. Focus on the issue instead of avoiding the issue. — Moe23:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I do NOT like this at all! This is just wrong! Who could possibly want to destroy all of the Danny Phantom character pages? I love this show, and all of it's characters! P-L-E-A-S-E Wikipedia, don't ruin these pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean7gordon (talk • contribs)
Super Strong Keep if only because this mass nomination is a very bad idea since it makes it hard to vote. There might be minor articles here I'd say should be merged, but the idea that the main character from a major series on a major network shouldn't have an article? It forces me to question whether the proposer was making a point or not. It's certainly an extreme step to take without discussing it with anyone else. FrozenPurpleCube00:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the personal articles for Danny and Vlad, as they are two of the most pivotal and developed characters in the show. Do what you will for everyone else, but at least keep these two. Maetch00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all In an effort to discourage mass nominations like this because:
a)they often contain a mixture of articles that do and do not fulfill the stated criteria of the nom for deletion
b)they are difficult for other editors to vote on, particularly in a case like this where I, personally, have no knowledge of the subject in question and
c)they are not in what I consider to be the spirit of Afd -- that is to say, if someone took the trouble to create an article that is not a speedy candidate, then it must be debated on its individual merits. (Saving time in this case is something of an injustice and it's better for WP to have the process be slow than risk deleting a worthy article)...
...I have decided that my policy is that if one of the articles in the mass nomination is not worthy of deletion then I will say Keep them all, with no prejudice against anyone relisting individual articles in their own Afd. In this case, although the nom doesn't really specify a guideline that is being violated here, the discussion seems to be about notability. Since I perceive the main character of this show to be notable enough for an article, by my own criteria, keep them all until relisted in their own Afds. Dina02:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I don't think these should be deleted because they have a lot of information in them, and to merge the information into the main show article would make it a huge mess (if you've ever read the GNU BASH manual page, I'm sure you know what I mean). I say keep it!DanielBrodzik06:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per the comments made above, mass nominations are not helpful and should be strongly discouraged. Yamaguchi先生 10:53, 15 October 2006
Keep all Danny Fenton is the main character on the show and it is a popular show, so we should keep this article. We should keep all of them. They are important characters. --DannyPhantomPhantom...18:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I even hate Dnny Phantom, but as it is (for some unknown reason) a popular show, the articles around the show should be kept. Every Marvel Comics and Buffy the Vampire Slayer character has its own page, why not this? Kraken of the Depths19:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Look, you may have a point that there's some excessive cruft here, but nominating EVERY page for deletion is just wrong. This is a show on Nickolodeon, not some non-notable YouTube serial. As with other crufty parts of the 'pedia, these articles need some attention... but that doesn't mean deletion. Mangojuicetalk04:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ALL If you merge some of the non-notable villains and characters, I could understand that, but the show is popular. The press release for the Urban Jungle game stated an average of 36 million people watch the show each month, I realize that is an average, but you can't tell me that's not popular. It's Ravvie-No, it's Marira23:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ALL If we delete them all, then we might as well delete every character in existence's Wikipedia entry while we're at it! This is an encyclopedia, ergo it should be as extensive as it can be. This show might not be as popular as SpongeBob, but there are goodness knows how many people out there who think Danny Phantom is an altogether better show. Do you really want to alienate those fans, just to make this online encyclopedia as sparse and, need I say it, as ultra-conservative as possible? User:Amras Felagund 16 October 2006
So you're saying that we should do an article for everything? Gotcha. That means that every single entity that ever appeared in a movie, book, comic book, video game or television show MUST have articles, notability be damned. - A Link to the Past(talk)03:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How absurd. The better question would be, what would constitute notable enough for you? He's the main character of a TV show. A lot of main characters from popular shows get their own articles. The relationships and ghostly powers are part of the character. Certainly, some of the articles could be merged, and some of the detail is a little more blow-by-blow than necessary, but still, much of the flagged articles and information is valid. Or do you intend to locate the character pages for every show in Wikipedia and flag THEM as well?--Jace Draccus03:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you've figured out my plan. I didn't think anyone would realize that because I don't think Danny Phantom characters deserve an article, I want to delete every television show character article. Despite it making no sense, being completely illogical and it being completely stupid to think that way, you somehow interpret it that way. Sarcasm aside, are you saying it is absurd to point out that WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information? The user stated that every single entity in fiction must have an article. While he didn't say it, he argued that it should be extensive as it can be. And we are certainly capable of blindly making articles on Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past(talk)04:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you intend on putting every character of a TV show up for deletion, you're not going to have that much success because they will eventually be recreated in one way or the other. You also stated that the above user said "The user stated that every single entity in fiction must have an article." I would like for you point out that diff because I can't find him stating that or did you just interpreted as that? (which furhur proves your logic is very flawed) If you weren't a half way established editor, I would cite WP:TROLL to you, but I guess you've read up on it before. — Moe22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE I don't see how the entirety of those articles merit deletion. Merging, perhaps, but the recommended course of action seems extreme and personally motivated.--Jace Draccus21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Sorry for writing three entries but If you merge the articles then other people will start articles for that character and do we want to merge it NO The show's viewers are increasing every day and as for People want to oppose this well that's your opinion. However if you keep the articles then things will just be better for me and most of the people (those who said keep all) so KEEP ALL ARTICLES -- Mrsanitazier 24(0):04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't use vote images, and don't post your vote multiple times. It's cheating. And how is it better for most people? I bet that there are more people who would vote delete than those who would vote keep. - A Link to the Past(talk)01:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the other comments made by Mrsanitazier. Please Mrsanitazier, please do not make it seem like more people are voting to keep than it really is. And Link, what the hell are you talking about when you say "I bet that there are more people who would vote delete than those who would vote keep". Are you blind? Do you not see the excessive amount of Speedy Keep and Keep votes? Not only by fans of Danny Phantom, but by respected editors of this community and by admins too. When are you going to give up this ultra-deletionist attitude of yours, because frankly it's getting old. Also, it's not a problem to use Images here, so I don't see why you care about that at all. — Moe02:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Funny, I always thought that the entirety of Wikipedia was encompassed of more than the people that voted in this AfD. And there are also respected members and admins who disagree with the respected members and admins who agree with you. And let me guess - I'm an ultra-deletionist because of this one AfD? I'm a merge/redirectist. You can't just say that someone is a deletionist because they AfD your favorite article. You know what? I say that you're an ultra-keepist, who would defend an article about The Box Ghost's eye color. And, there is a problem with vote images because they're generally not supposed to be used. So now you see why I "care at all". - A Link to the Past(talk)02:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And my point was that everyone who voted in this AfD does not comprise the entirety of Wikipedia. My earlier point was that more people would vote delete than keep. What do you expect? There are a bunch of AfDs on all of the Danny Phantom character articles, so everyone who edits those articles comes to their rescue. - A Link to the Past(talk)03:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't comprise the entirety of Wikipedia, but editors and admins who decided to make thier presence felt is what consensus is about. And if the the other respected members of the community and admins who disagree with me on this issue exist, where the fuck are they, because they certainly are not here. You're wrong, I don't like this show, at all. I don't particualry like the storyline and most cartoons nowadays are rubish. Regardless that doesn't take away a cartoons popularity or notablity. NO, I wouldn't defend an article about The Box Ghost's eye color, but I sure as hell wouldn't agree with some tired-excuse you present as notability. The only reason I don't agree with the deletion is because I think main characters of a TV show are notable enough for thier own article. I also vote Keep because I absolutly hate mass-deletion voting like this. If you AFD'ed these articles sepretely you would probably have some different responses, but wtf do you expect when you nominate 27 complete articles of a popular TV show for deletion? — Moe03:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's speculation, nothing more. If 'possible votes' mattered, democracy would fall apart. So the entirety of Wikipedia is less important than the entirety of people that voted here. Most of which voted 'Keep' or 'Merge'. Which invalidates your theory. Also, don't complain about the editors 'coming to the rescue', you're the one that chose to mass-flag. --Jace Draccus03:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Moe, how can you argue with your own logic? You stated that my AfDing of these articles makes me an ultra-deletionist, so why aren't you an extremist keepist when you do the opposite? And yes, I speculated, just like another user speculated that these articles' existence is good for most people. - A Link to the Past(talk)04:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't call me Moe. And you're the one wanting them gone. Speculation, exaggeration and lack of solid argument does not help your case. You want us to agree they should be deleted, remember? However, I think you were referred to as an ultra-deletionist because of your apparently fanatical obsession with removing these articles. Moe might be an 'extremist keepist', but he'd not defending the articles for the sake of defending them... merely, as I understand his arguments, because he doesn't agree with your reasoning or methods. --Jace Draccus08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't speaking to you, so I didn't call you Moe. And what are you talking about? When another user speculated that these articles need to stay because it's good for most Wikipedians it's fine, but when I say that most Wikipedians would probably agree with me I'm a fiend? And I like how you point out that I am apparently being fanatical in my pursuit to have these articles deleted. What should I do to not be fanatical? Vote to keep them? Another hypocricy - why is it that Moe can accuse me of being an ultra deletionist because I happen to vote to delete one group of articles, while Moe could never be an extreme keepist for voting to keep this one group of articles? - A Link to the Past(talk)19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being lazy and address Moe in replies to Moe then. Let's keep things orderly. I never commented on another user's speculations, only that your speculations are entirely irrelevant as 'most wikipedians' are not voting on this article, so saying 'most would vote delete' means nothing, as most who have voted went for 'keep' (Ok, yes, I editted, it didn't make sense before--Jace Draccus 20:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)). If you're referring to the 'speculation' I think you are, then look at their reasoning as to WHY they think its good. And argue it with them... as for not being fanatical? Stop quoting rules that don't exist, and find some justification more solid than 'OMG IT'S NOT AS POPULAR AS SPONGEBOB SO IT ISN'T AS IMPORTANT'... and don't flag EVERY article relating to the show for deletion. That's a napalm approach. Better to review each article on its OWN merits. Also, learn to read. I said Moe _may_ be 'an extreme keepist', but I defended his REASON for being so. Which has more to do with the Wikipedia process than a personal bias towards the show, unlike your portrayal of your reasoning. --Jace Draccus20:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I always thought that having a personal bias against a show entailed that I disliked it or, Hell, was biased. I like DP and Final Fantasy VI, yet I nominated character articles of both for deletion. And the rule does exist, according to you - who stated that I was fanatically against the Danny Phantom articles. So logically, you are fanatically for the Danny Phantom articles. - A Link to the Past(talk)21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way you are acting, it does seem like you have a bias towards the show. You don't have to be fanatically one way or the other to have a strong bias towards something. And you Link, truely without a doubt in my mind, do have a bias against characters having thier own articles. — Moe22:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Moe: But shouldn't I actually have a strong bias to have a strong bias towards somkething? How am I acting? Oh, I know what you mean - I must hate Danny Phantom because I'm not making an article about every single orgamism in the Danny Phantom series. I seem to have forgotten that one's opinion on a subject has no bearing compared to what some person with absolutely no knowledge of one's actual opinion. And I applaud you for forming an opinion on my true intentions without having any evidence whatsoever that even indicates that your opinion has any value whatsoever.
And Draccus: Ever notice that you look at two people doing the same thing and decide that only one person - conveniently the one you disagree with - is wrong for doing it. Moe is claiming that I have a strong bias towards this article and is assuming bad faith (meaning that what I am doing is vandalism). But it's always okay when the person agrees with you. - A Link to the Past(talk)23:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moe isn't basing his arguments on anything as absurd as 'It's not as popular as Spongebob'... also, the bit about how you're not writing about every single organism in the show so you must hate it? No, that's absurd. The fact that you're so relentlessly against the articles, against even the main character having his own article, to the point that you're fervently proposing a massive delete bomb of 20-30 articles, tells us you hate it. --Jace Draccus23:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So deleting the character articles means I cannot like Danny Phantom? Can you imagine why I think that both you and Moe are incompetent fools? No human being with an ounce of intelligence makes such a claim unless they're just trying to make baseless accusations. You are either an idiot or are trolling. Next time you decide to act like a moron and decide that you know what I think more than I do, smack yourself upside the head and throw your computer in the trash. Whether you're an idiot or a troll, you ruin the internet. If you are an idiot, let me explain something - I like Danny Phantom. I have stated that. But you seem to not like to bring up evidence that hurts your otherwise solid point that I hate Danny Phantom. Apparently, someone didn't consider that the fact that one likes Danny Phantom kind of shows he doesn't hate it. But then again, can't let logic and reality stop you from accusing those who dissent from your opinion of bad faith. - A Link to the Past(talk)00:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smooth Link, really immature to call someone an "idiot", "moron" and a "fool" for going against your view points. I suggest the next lessen me and Jace Draccus should take is WP:DFTT, so I think we should refran from talking to you. — Moe00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never mentioned bad faith. I also never said I had a problem with deletion to some extent, I just don't like the way you've proposed it, or tried to defend it. You ignore what others actually say in favour of blowing things out of proportion (which is listed on WP:POINT as potentially disruptive behaviour), you make statements of little relevance or no evidence ('It's not notable because it's not as popular as Spongebob'), and, well, trying to get 26 articles deleted at once seems excessive. But since you're not listening, I'll stop talking. Bye now. --Jace Draccus00:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what a genius you are, Moe! After all, even though I never mentioned my viewpoints while referring to the two of you with those descriptions, I must have been discussing different viewpoints. I couldn't have been, oh, say, calling you idiots, morons, fools, and trolls for making false accusations towards me. And listening? Yeah, you did a great job listening. Except for the fact that you haven't responded to my request for a non-idiotic statement to prove that your accusations aren't actually bullshit. Let me guess, you're too busy to prove that your word is worth more than dirt. - A Link to the Past(talk)00:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also never said you hate the show. The only time I mentioned hate, I was explaining that your attitude makes it look that way. Please read. --Jace Draccus01:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which was? Not voting to keep these articles? I said it was not notable enough to warrant character articles. There's nothing to analyze about that. It's not some deep seeded hatred for the show. - A Link to the Past(talk)02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great argument - you could have gone for the more advanced "you hate character articles 'cause", but you settled for a simpler argument. And do you want me to bring up where you said "fervently deleting 20-30 articles tells me you hate it"? - A Link to the Past(talk)03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But if I do that, I've committed the cardinal sin of assuming I know more about what you think than you do! Gasp! Shock horror! And yes, that behaviour tells me that. I didn't say you actually hate the show, just that it sure seemed that way. Oh, do you want me to bring up the comments you made about how un-notable Danny Phantom is, to the point that even the main character shouldn't have his own article, and how much less popular than Spongebob it is? How about all the sarcastic and insulting remarks you've made to posters here, mostly myself and Moe? How about how you deliberately and unnecessarily distort things in attempts to discredit our arguments? If we say that Wikipedia should be comprehensive, then YOU say that we're suggesting EVERY CHARACTER IN EXISTENCE should have its own article. If we say that we think you are acting in bad faith because you are being such an ass about it all, then suddenly EVERYBODY who does an AfD is acting in bad faith! Sure, maybe Moe hasn't been entirely nice about it, and maybe I've slipped too, but you're not a victimised Vestal virgin here. --Jace Draccus04:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Draccus: You make it sound like telling everyone what their opinion is - even when they have told you that it's not - is perfectly alright. And no, I would prefer you cease your incessent lies. How does "Danny Phantom isn't notable enough to have character articles" mean "Danny Phantom isn't notable?" Tell me - if I thought DP wasn't notable, why the Hell wouldn't I nominate the TV show? And, the sarcastic comments come from you spreading bullcrap. "Because he doesn't think Danny Phantom isn't notable enough, he hates Danny Phantom". And another bullshit statement! I never knew one Wikipedian could be quite as laughable as you two. I was responding to a comment that Wikipedia should be as extensive as possible. You claim I'm distorting things when you make false claims? Psh. And being an ass about it all? Timeline: Created AfD. Watched people vote Keep a bunch o' times. Watched Moe spew fuck a few times. Watched Moe, etc. make baseless claims. Asked for proof of these things. Watched Moe, etc. make baseless claims and refuse to give proof, began to assume bad faith. Then I acted like an ass. That was the point where I acted like an ass. Not your viewpoints, not getting flamed, being told that I am wrong about the facts of me and you both are right and that I must be acting in bad faith because... well, no reason provided, apparently. So my AfD is in bad faith because I have a thing about dirty liars? Then can I invalidate your vote for being a potty mouth? And how exactly am I not the victim? What does you attacking me first constitute? Are you the victim because I actually asked you to not make bullshit statements? And to Moe, it makes me look bad when you tell half truths. Of course, it doesn't make you look good when people see all truth. Such as the idea that most people would vote delete being in response to someone saying that these articles are good for most people. Can he proof it? No. Can I prove what I say? No. So basically, my proofless statement is bad and his proofless statement is good. I guess that it's not so bad when you want to believe what they're saying, eh? Grow up. You may not want to admit it, but you both are dead wrong. All you have been doing is making up false statements about me. You tell me I hate Danny Phantom (and continue insisting it after I prove you wrong by *gasp* revealing that your baseless accusation is incorrect), that I hate character articles (yeah, because I've AfDed so many character articles, like Wario and Lakitu... oh, my bad, I featured those), that I made several of the above statements towards you (when anyone who is capable of reading can tell who I was speaking to). The only reason I'd assume bad faith in either of you is because you have both been trolling towards me by telling me I am incapable of having my own opinion and must be reminded what my opinion is. But of course, I'm not assuming bad faith, because it's against policy. - A Link to the Past(talk)06:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where I said you hate the show. Show me where you asked for proof of anything. Show me where I attacked you in the way you attacked me (moron, fool, idiot, troll). Show me one single statement I made about you as a person or what you actually think, rather than how you come across. Quote my supposed bullshit, my false statements. You can't. I said nothing about bad faith until the post immediately above, and I have not ever insisted you hate THE SHOW. The only thing I said CLOSE to it was that you SEEM to dislike it. I have never tried to tell you what your opinion is, only that I don't agree with it. --Jace Draccus07:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for watching Moe 'spew fuck', apart from his vote he hasn't posted anything that wasn't in response. Don't make it sound like he's just saying things without any trigger. The proofless statements... fine, it was an idiotic thing for the other guy to say. Doesn't make yours any better? Happy now? --Jace Draccus07:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Except for the fact that you haven't responded to my request for a non-idiotic statement to prove that your accusations aren't actually bullshit." That's one of two that I've found where I ask you or subtly ask you to show evidence by pointing out you have nothing to back it up. You attacked me by making false statements. I couldn't care less about personal attacks, it's when people lie about me. Additionally, the only time I made the insults was when the both of you had told me that I hated Danny Phantom (and how does "it tells me that you hate Danny Phantom" not telling me that I hate Danny Phantom? You seem convinced that I hate it with out any good reasoning). And no, not wanting characters from the show to have articles is not logic to assume I hate it. I do not come across as a Danny Phantom hater. The fact that I don't think it's notable enough to warrant character articles has nothing to do with what I think of the show itself. And yes, you have said I hated it.
Keep all per the comments above; even if these were not so blatantly notable, we have WP:FICT which suggests a merge in borderline cases. I feel a certain degree of pity for the closing administrator here, and suggest that the nominator remove the 26+ AFD tags on his/her own as pennance. :-) RFerreira01:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. So, I'm not going to assume good faith in that you care about the quality of Wikipedia. You seem to have a massive bias against me. "Oh, he doesn't agree with me? Must be a vandal!" Well, once you find one single inkling of truth to the idea that I could ever possibly in any dimension at any point in past, present or future be AfDing these articles out of bad faith, report back. Until then, stop wasting Wikipedia bandwidth with your childish banter. And by the way, it can go SO far, the official Wikipedia policy that you must follow. If AfDing an article is acting in bad faith, the majority of admins and respected members of Wikipedia are vandals. - A Link to the Past(talk)23:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link, I have never said the word "vandal" in regards to you. If you could provide a diff that says I did, I would be more than willing to say sorry, but there isn't a diff and that blantant lie is just disgraceful. I never said anyone that disagrees with me is a vandal, and I never have. If you disagree with me, theres a lack of consensus. But when you have 20 editors saying the same thing against one editor (you), it does appear to go against WP:POINT for continuing on. Your totally hypocrictial Link, you say you don't want to be labeled anything for going against a opposing view point, but then you call me a "bad wikipedian". — Moe00:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You suggested that people should assume bad faith in what I was doing. Acting in bad faith would logically mean I was acting to vandalize Danny Phantom-related articles. And, friend, my calling you a bad Wikipedian has more merit than you calling me an ultra deletionist and Danny Phantom hater. You have me AfDing Danny Phantom character articles as your only logic for both (and me saying that I like Danny Phantom, but why ruin a solid point with something that destroys it?), while I have the fact that you assumed bad faith in my actions, assumed that I was doing this out of hatred of the series and hatred of character articles (more bad faith) and started cussing while responding to me. - A Link to the Past(talk)00:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
Well, let's see... yeah, you're a troll. Not of Wikipedia, but trolling towards me. Prove I hate Danny Phantom. Prove that I lack the ability to form my own opinion. Prove I'm acting in bad faith. Until then, stop ruining Wikipedia with your bullshit accusations, alright? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Link to the Past (talk • contribs) 00:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep I can understand merging some of the lesser characters (like one-shot villains or something), but mass deleting? Especially the important characters, I don't agree with, so keep. Neo Yi 17:44, 18 October 2006
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.
Keep all along with implementing the suggestions pitched by the above users. Since when the deletionists became the majority here? Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Happy Halloween! • WP:NYCS} 02:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)