Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Goosebumps 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Goosebumps characters

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

Since there is no recurring characters in the Goosebumps series, this list is very trivial. -- d'oh! _[talk] 07:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could say that for about 90% of every other series. Then again, people could easily do their own site if they need this list. For now I'll say "Keep", but we'll see how it goes. (I'll keep editing for now) MJN SEIFER (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of characters are appropriate for fictional franchises, no matter how trite, and the lack of recurring characters isn't necessarily a bar to inclusion. Plus, this provides a great target into which any other Goosebumps character articles can be merged. Jclemens (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Goosebumps in an anthology book series, while some books in the series do have sequels these are few and far between, and there is little to any crossover between the other stories. Essentially this would be like compiling a list of every "Twilight Zone" character, yes technically it can be done, but it probably shouldn't be.--Deathawk (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Several characters are well known in the article, such as Slappy the Dummy [1] and the Haunted Mask [2], and have sources linked to them. Also, many of the characters are named in published reviews or articles on the books [3][4][5] (there are many more than this). It's notable enough to have it's own list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearstreetsaga (talk • contribs) 07:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Articles that are either unsourced or sourced only to the fictional work itself are rarely appropriate. This is especially true for a fictional universe that does not really have any consistent major protagonists or antagonists. As Deathawk says, this would be like synthesizing a list of Twilight Zone characters. Or a list of "villains of the week" in some show. This kind of thing belongs on a fan wiki, where trivia and fan interpretation are OK, but not a serious encyclopedia. I also find the rationale that we should keep this article because some time someone might write more crufty in-universe plot summaries and we might like to have somewhere to dump the shit to be a very poor argument. Reyk _YO! 01:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use the term "crufy" it's a violation of the rules. I accept your opinion though MJN SEIFER (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule against using the word "cruft". There's an essay that recommends against it, but essays do not carry any kind of official weight and I don't think much of this particular one. Reyk _YO! 00:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No rule against calling something cruft. None of these characters meet the WP:GNG. And there's nothing to WP:Verify notability of these characters in aggregate. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2010 (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.