Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakout characters

:{{la|List of breakout characters}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_breakout_characters Stats])

:({{Find sources|List of breakout characters}})

WP:LISTCRUFT, no real criteria for inclusion, crossing all mediums, all genres, full of WP:OR analysis. Also WP:LSC Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources Gaijin42 (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. While there has been a dispute about which of two criteria for inclusion should be used, or both, they are clearly defined. I don't see how the other cited reasons are reasons to delete ... of course it's meant to encompass genres outside of television, because the phenomenon occurs in all genres and media. And if a list attracts cruft, the remedy is to delete said cruft, not nominate the list for deletion. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

::See my addition to the delete reasoning above. The criteria for this do not meet WP:LSC, they are completely subjective,and not based on any reliable source. Further, almost no addition to the list is sourced showing why it should be included, the references are mere background and not discussing that char as a breakout (with a few exceptions). Additionally I would say that the topic itself is not particularly notable (although many characters have been discussed as breakout chars, how many books/articles are discussing the phenomenon as a whole?) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

:::To be totally honest, when I created this article as a result of discussion at this AfD six years ago, it was just "breakout character", with just a few more obvious examples (Fonzie, Alex Keaton, Urkel ... all ones who actually displaced the intended main character on their respective shows). A year ago someone else http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=List+of+breakout+characters decided, perhaps because of all the examples that kept being added, that it should be a list. I would be perfectly happy with a separate article and list. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep. At first, I was leaning towards deletion as listcruft; however, after looking at the article I think it may be useful as a clearinghouse first-stop. Such an article needs periodic monitoring, though, or it can get out of hand as a catch-all. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

::Tell me about it. I haven't had the time to do the sort of purge that I used to do quite regularly. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Daniel Case, we appreciate the work you've put into it, but it's a mess, and not what Wikipedia is about. I propose having a definition of what a breakout charater is, the one or two examples. Then link to another website which has a more substantial list, so readers can find out more if they wish. Prawn Skewers (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

::That's not a deletion. That's a change in the article. I'm actually open to it, as noted above. It should be discussed on the talk page, not in an AfD.

However, the [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BreakoutCharacter only other really extensive list online] that I can think of is on another wiki and thus would not pass WP:ELNO. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

:::WP:ELNO quite clearly states, "Links normally to be avoided", indicating there can and will be exceptions. It does not say, "never ever ever link to these sites or Wikipedia will explode." And besides, I'm sure there is a website out there *somewhere* that we could use that hasn't been written by those filthy TV Tropes people. Prawn Skewers (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

::::It says quite clearly at number 12: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". Hey, I contribute to TV Tropes too, and while unlike us it's registered-users-only it's still open, and I clean up errors there even more frequently than I do here. I'm not saying exceptions couldn't be possible, but I have yet to see a page here link to an open wiki anywhere. If you find one, please share it—I'm sure that a great deal of angst went into a long discussion that ultimately reached consensus, at least among the editors who didn't get indefinitely blocked during the process. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

:::::Look closer:

:::::*Star Trek into Darkness - links to Memory Alpha

:::::*Lost (season 1) - links to Lostpedia

:::::*Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope - links to Wookiepedia

:::::*Chekhov's gun - links to TV Tropes

:::::*World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade - links to Wowpedia

:::::Need I go on? Prawn Skewers (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

{{outdent|5}}No, but to me those are exceptions that prove the rule. I'm not really familiar with them but I believe it's standard for WP:STARTREK and other projects devoted to specific episodic works to have standard xlink templates that include links to fan wikis for that work ... decisions that are doubtless the result of consensus opinion on those projects. As for the only one that isn't, Chekhov's gun, it seems to be a rather neglected article where the link was put in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chekhov%27s_gun&diff=345333249&oldid=344028934 a while ago]. And, in fact, that link [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chekhov%27s_gun&diff=384446094&oldid=379808901 has been controversial within the article].

Really, if we want to discuss this we should have the conversation at WT:EL. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: After reading the discussion above, I can argue that characters put on this list don't necessarily need to be considered 'subjective'. Many creators often do state that characters that began as minor or one-time characters ended up gaining larger fanbases and more prominent roles in their respective series. This index can be good as a reference to characters that fall under that criteria. A clean up should be enough to remove any unsourced examples on this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.91.15 (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Oh they are quite notable. WP:Notability and WP:RS are all the sources it has to show on the list, unless redirect the list to the article.--GoShow (...............) 04:49, 22 September 2012 (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.