Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Code Lyoko 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 Code Lyoko.

Since this was a relatively contentious discussion, I'll give some closing notes. While there were passionate arguments made in favor of keeping the articles, a number of the keep rationales were not firmly based in policy, and those that were failed to gain a consensus that they address notability concerns expressed by those arguing for deletion/merger.

All articles have been redirected to preserve history for merger. --Haemo 18:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Code Lyoko characters

I doubt these characters are notable enough for their own articles, especially Franz Hopper, Elisabeth Delmas, and Jim Morales, as they appear to be more side characters. The articles also have no sources. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a primary source, not a secondary source, and a lack of primary sources isn't really a deletion issue for non-contentious fiction. - perfectblue 17:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's policy to cite third party sources. There is no need to cite a self referencing source. For example "Bob is a builder from the fictional cartoon series Bob the Builder. He builds things", this requires no citations as it is self referencing to the cartoon Bob the builder. - perfectblue 17:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said, the person nominating these articles for deletion has no knowledge of Code Lyoko. Like TTN and all the other Cabalists, he is an entertainment hater with no regard for the rights and freedoms of proud editors. Angie Y. 21:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Angie, I am not an entertainment hater, hell, I'm an amateur comedian. I am merley suggesting the articles are not needed and without sources. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm agreeing with Angie Y. . Why do people care about what articles are and aren't on Wikipedia? There's no harm done by letting them stay. Also, the Second First Amendment says that we can write whatever we want as long as it's the truth and well-written. JunKazamaFan 21:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: That is by far the worst argument ever. Of course people care what articles are and are not on Wikipedia. That is the main point of Wikipedia from the editor's (not the readers') point of view: to make Wikipedia a quality product by adding what is necessary and removing what is not. Additionally, you can't insult someone's very being by telling to "get a life" and then brush it off as a joke by saying "No offense." Offense will be taken regardless of those two meaningless words; that constitutes a personal attack. In any case, I've never heard anybody refer to the Wikipedia Cabal in a serious manner before. Angie, you are aware that the Cabal does not exist, right? It's just an excuse that people use when they disagree with overwhelming consensus. I don't think it applies here, because consensus is not overwhelming, but regardless, there is no cabal. You Can't See Me! 21:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)"Why do people care about what articles are and aren't on Wikipedia?". We are an encyclopedia. If we wanted an encyclopedia made of crap, we'd just let any old article be created and we wouldn't even bother with a deletion process. If you want a wiki where those rules apply then make your own. There are certain policies and guidelines at wikipedia. "Whoever cares about what articles are and aren't on Wikipedia should get a life" You have just essentially insulted everyone who works hard here... As for the second ammendment comment, Angie made the same comment ages ago... Seraphim Whipp 22:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Okay. I went too far. I apologize. I'm really sorry. So what if Angie said that before? I agree with it. These articles are not crap. They are, in my opinion, well done. JunKazamaFan 22:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just found that particular argument and lexical choice familiar. Seraphim Whipp 22:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Again, I apologize. JunKazamaFan 22:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm there's no need to apologise for it... I was actually just caught in an edit conflict where I was trying to add "Now that you've pointed it out, I guess it does seem irrelevant." Seraphim Whipp 22:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was apologizing for my "get a life" comment, which I found to be mean. I know. I still don't understand everything about Wikipedia, so I guess I am of little to no use to this argument. JunKazamaFan 22:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a sockpuppetry case involving this AFD. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'm changing my opinion. Merge it. It'll work out better and look better, in my opinion. JunKazamaFan 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment — An American, right? The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution? That 's the one the gun fans argue gives them the right to keep an Assault rifle on their nightstand. Perchance you meant the First — which says nothing about your writing having to be the truth or well-written — or about you being free to post unencyclopaedic content here. --Jack Merridew 08:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    nb: diff --Jack Merridew 10:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    and my clarification of the situation. --Jack Merridew 10:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I knew that, but I guess I was too busy to fix it. I can't believe I made such a stupid mistake! Yes, I did mean the first. I'm sorry. I'm new to Wikipedia, so some things confused me and I was not informed of some things. Basically, I was naive. So, again, I vote to merge. If I have not addressed this enough, I'm sorry for my offensive comments. JunKazamaFan 10:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to either Code Lyoko or List of primary characters in Code Lyoko. I think these various character articles have a lot of good content, but that they also have a lot of details that might be more appropriate for a Code Lyoko/animation-centered website. I tend to think that merging the most pertinent information into Code Lyoko would be the best chance to save this content, because there is always the chance that the List of primary characters in Code Lyoko could be nominated for deletion in the future due to its lack of external sources and concerns about notability. --Kyoko 22:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Googling it, there is a Code Lyoko wiki. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge. Merge to a parent list. Half of these characters are minor characters. A page dedicated to them seems superfluous. However, the pages seem to have enough content to remain as seperate pages (though quality and citations are lacking). Wolface 04:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; add citations if needed Half? Jim and Elisabeth, perhaps, but the others are quite major. I haven't seen much reason for deletion beyond "Code Lyoko isn't as popular as the Simpsons." The articles are decently written, and I see no cause for confusion. Wiki is not paper.12.160.93.139 01:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That was the above user's only edit. Seraphim Whipp 11:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to see the arguments presented, please refer to all of the comments I have made about deletion. I assure you that there are plenty of reasons, none of which include, "not as popular as The Simpsons". Seraphim Whipp 11:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the major characters (Yumi, Ulrich, Jeremie, Odd, Aelita and Xana), and Merge the other characters into a single 'Minor Characters' page (assuming the file size doesn't get too big becuase of this). Nisa Tunesque 09:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion discussions are about consensus, not !votes. Please give a reason for your choice. Seraphim Whipp 11:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These articles are about characters in a TV show, most TV shows do not have their own articles. AFUSCO 01:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I may also be voting delete, I must point out that this is flawed reasoning. Almost all TV shows have articles, an many therein have character sub-articles. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but these articles usually have sources (keyword: sources). And as stated above, there are very little sources for the CL characters, thus maing them non-notable for their own article. Thanks, Codelyoko193 Talk Contributions 00:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; Code Lyoko was renewed 3 times to run for a total of 4 seasons (a total of 90 episodes); greater than most syndicated animations. It broadcast internationally across several different countries and in several different lanugages, and was carried by unaffiliated television networks (not just one network broadcasting world wide), AND (this is an important fact) it was IMPORTED into the US rather than exported, which is rare for European cartoons. Therefore Code Lyoko is clearly notable purely on vieweing figures and broadcasts alone. Making it's characters also notable.
    As for secondary sources, what kind of sources can you seriously expect for a childrens cartoon? Unless it is particularly controversial the most that you will usually get are fan site and reviews in TV guides. Seriously folks, a cartoon has to stir up quite a hullabaloo to get any more than this, regardless of it's notability. For example, most Disney cartoons never get coverage outside of TV guides, fan sites and Disney's own publications unless they hit a raw never and attract haters (most of whom would never pass WP:RS) who accuse them of promoting consumerism or sex or something silly like that. - perfectblue 17:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because the show is notable doesn't mean its characters are. Notability isn't inhereted. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 18:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like Perfectblue to stop assuming so much bad faith with me, I am not a troll and I do not intend to be. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not presuming anything. Please stick to the issue at hand, making personal comments or accusations is not good form. - perfectblue 17:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable per WP:FICT. Google search reveals sufficient coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the characters seem to be sufficiently notable within the work to allow for spin-off articles due to concerns around the parent article's length. Dreadstar † 00:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. That's not how sources are found. G-hits for the parent show is not what counts as references for the character articles. We needs specific references for the specific character's production/maybe commentary on style i.e how it's drawn/a source which could discuss why the voice actors were chosen. We need sources which discuss real world information about the character. For example, if we were to discuss the Mona Lisa, we would discuss the style used for the painting, the artist's choice of colour etc. We wouldn't describe what the painting looks like and that's what these articles are like. Seraphim Whipp 00:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I addressed that issue in the second part of my comment. First part established notability of the overall subject, the second addressd the issue surrounding the individual characters in this work of fiction, per WP:FICT#Dealing_with_fiction (e.g. in reading through the pages returned by google on the parent subject, the characters are talked about in detail and seem to be individually notable. Dreadstar † 00:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A Google search such as this is what you would do to prove individual notability. I'm sorry to say, the results are less than spectacular for the one character, and are not likely to be for any others. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is clearly established by the number of seasons and the breadth of distribution. If this were a non-notable series then it wouldn't have gone 4 seasons on international release. - perfectblue 17:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did that type of search too and came up with the same less-than-stellar results. While Google searches are very helpful in establishing notability, they aren't the last word in the establishment of notability or keeping articles. Truthfully, I'm on the fence with this, but I think they should be kept. Merging them into the parent article isn't feasible, but perhaps as mentioned above, they could be merged into a single character listing. Either way, we should keep the character info - and I don't have a problem with keeping separate ones. Dreadstar † 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very true, but at the same time, this isn't the sort of programme that's going to be studied and analysed and it's unlikely that there are any books available that chronicle production details and other real world info either. Seraphim Whipp 01:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They might be more popular in France than you think...;) Dreadstar † 01:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehe. Touché! Seraphim Whipp 01:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fantastique, Seraphim! Well done, touché indeed!! lol! Dreadstar † 01:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd have to prove that, not wink. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A short note: this would more than likely be the only source of helpful out-of-universe content. However, having skimmed through through it, I wouldn't call it very helpful in that regard. The "Part 2" coming up might be more help, but that's not an issue so long as its in production. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, no winking then. Here's a start: [1], [2] Dreadstar † 01:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, we can't reference ourselves, I'm just giving an example that in the French Wikipedia, the characters do have their own ariticles...they have AfD too...but I'm not sure how they differ. I'm going to check with our French speaking colleagues to see if they are able to find some good sources for these. Dreadstar † 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Though a fan-site might work in some respects, another Wiki wouldn't for the saem reasons ours can't source themselves. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, that's basically what I was referring to..it's the French language Wikipedia, our sister project - so we can't self reference per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources. Dreadstar † 01:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if we go by google results, there's a substantial difference depending on which character is chosen, for instance, a search on Aelita Lyoko returns a far greater number of results than does the above such as this. And s search through the French Google for Aelita "code lyoko" has a sold number of hits. I haven't yet evaluated any of these sources, but it shows a marked difference between characters. Dreadstar † 02:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying that with Ulrich or Yumi will likely net you the highest amount of results. None too helpful, but higher nonetheless. Most of the hits on any search come up with forums or youtube videos. A French search may net better results. It's hard to tell validity through pagenames, but they at least seem a bit less trivial. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, for anyone interested in finding sources, here's an example of what is apparently acceptable sourcing for a fictional character article that seems similar to the ones being discussed here: Squall Leonhart, this is from the notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)# note-2, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII#Squall. I've been looking, but it's late and I'm tired. Will look more tomorrow. Dreadstar † 06:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: The series is clearly notable, and the characters are clearly notable within the series, so why aren't they being suggested for merging instead. If these characters truly aren't notable enough for individual mentions, shouldn't the information that they contain at least be retained in a single character page.
    Admin, if you're out there and do decide that these characters aren't up to individual pages, please merge them as the other references to them on the multi-character pages are working on the basis that a fuller description exists elsewhere and so need to be expanded. - perfectblue 17:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that most people have already suggested merging. Please don't jump to conclusions. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note that there are also current AfDs for the related pages Factory (Code Lyoko) and Kadic Junior High School. JJL 17:47, 19 October 2007 (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.