Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Pickles

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. — Aitias // discussion 00:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Pickles

Delete or Merge. I don't see anywhere of more than one character in SpongeBob SquarePants or The Fairly OddParents having their own pages. If the result is merge, merge to List of Rugrats characters. Marcus2 (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it'll likely get undone by a slobbering fanboy if redirected. There are no out of universe sources for the character. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't have an article for every single character in any television series. just a little insignificant 17:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of Rugrats characters. This and the other nominations around it all belong in a list of Rugrats characters (as many movies, movie series, and TV series have such lists. I don't see why Rugrats wouldn't qualify for such a list).Tyrenon (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sourcing and commentary. Merge as a last resort, it seems large enough for a standalone article. While there are no standalone SpongeBob SquarePants for main characters, there are for many others including Moe Szyslak and Kenny McCormick. Choosing SpongeBob SquarePants and ignoring Simpsons is called the Strawman fallacy. For Moe Szyslak every reference is from the Wikipedia episode plot, or from the DVD commentary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable sources establish independent notability for this fictional thing (here come the snowglobes and the sticker books). Redirect to Rugrats after deletion if you want to.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tommy is the main character of a notable franchise that includes cartoons, films, even amusement park attractions and the article itself includes numerous reliable sources such as newspapers establishing indepedent notability for this fictional character. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is the main character of a notable franchise. He has stared in different animated series now, several movies, been featured on a lot of merchandise, and there is even a major news paper which says "Tommy Pickles is a bigger star than George Clooney". Honestly now. How much more proof do you need of notability than that? Dream Focus 01:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Principal characters of major works get articles. Simple and direct rule, not going buy the accident of what sources we happen to find. I wonder what the fiction minimalists will do 2 or 3 years from now, when there will be accessible due to the expansion of Gbooks and gnews,. and the growth of academic work on these shows, multiple works giving information on even relatively minor characters? Will they still hold to N=2RS for fictional elements, and accept all of these without objection? I notice a comment above saying we should have articles ofn principal characters because then we'd need them on minor characters also--that's like saying we shouldn't have article on major league ballplayers, because we'd need one on every player regardless. (or perhaps I do an injustice, and it's just not realizing this is a major character.) DGG (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speaking as something of a minimalist, I think that having articles on the main characters in reasonably popular series is more than defensible. Doing so for secondary and tertiary characters is more the bailiwick of dedicated 'pedias. In general, I would even be willing to say that if there is a dedicated 'pedia for a series we should encourage highly in-depth contributions on a fandom to go there. While I know WP isn't paper, I still think there's something to be said for in-depth articles on characters belonging in a dedicated source rather than on here. The proper analogue, IMHO, would be Wookiepedia to Star Wars or the Battlestar Wiki to BSG.Tyrenon (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tommy is definietly a Principal character of a major work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of these are notable, and some aren't. I don't have the time, inclination, or lexisnexis account needed to turn them into GAs, but it's possible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 30 May 2009 (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.