Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of My Gym Partner's a Monkey 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 merge to My Gym Partner's a Monkey. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

List of My Gym Partner's a Monkey characters

List of My Gym Partner's a Monkey characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Only 19 sources. This article does not have enough notably, and no real world or third party coverage to provide it. JJ98 (Talk) 01:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Merge after a massive trimming. Notable enough to be part of the main article, My Gym Partner's a Monkey, which is not long enough to warrant a separate article for its characters. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that per WP:NNC, notability does not apply to portions of a list or article. Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep 1) Notability of lists is derived from the list topic, and no one has argued that My Gym Partner's a Monkey is NN--nor would it appear to be. 2) V is met through the use of primary sources. 3) Precedent exists for large lists of NN characters from notable fictional franchises; if nothing else, it's a cleaner alternative than a bunch of tiny character stubs--if we start deleting character lists from notable shows, there will be appropriately increased resistance to merging minor characters into lists. Jclemens (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, and 4), since the list article is already a WP:SS breakout of the main series article, per WP:ATD it would be moved back into that article in preference to deletion unless some policy-based deletion rationale had been advanced, which none has yet been. Jclemens (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 20:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per our guidelines on plot only coverage. This list is of no encyclopaedic value, and there's no evidence that the characters listed are notable. --Anthem 19:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete- Plot-only article sourced entirely to primary sources, and overflowing with original research and excessive fannishness. The idea that presenting this stuff in list form gives it a free pass regarding our content policies is absurd. Reyk _YO! 20:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete violates WP:JUSTPLOT because there isn't significant information about reception here. Lists are also expected to meet the general notability guideline that all articles should have someone independent to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: The article relies exclusively on primary sources and, as such, a great deal of the content appears to be original research by synthesis. The text is written with an in-universe perspective that lacks real-world perspective so it is a plot-only description of a fictional work, material unsuitable for Wikipedia. The list appears to be an unnecessary split of My Gym Partner's a Monkey as the content of the list does not meet the general notability guideline. As the list has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, the list does not meet the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists and, since it falls into what Wikipedia is not, it does not meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists either. Since it is a redundant content fork and all material in the article is taken from primary sources or with original research by synthesis, there is no content that deserves to be merged. Jfgslo (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Merge to My Gym Partner's a Monkey after trimming. I agree with all 4 points presented by Jclemens, but it is true that the target article is not too long, and the list is a bit too detailed. Outright deletion is not a real practical option, since the article contains a good amount of content that corresponds to the standard coverage given to a subject of this kind - frankie (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

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.