930:
way, and to separate the characters is an obvious step. Its the coverage of the fiction as a whole that has to b=include more than plot, and it does--the part of the coverage discussing the plot and characters will just discuss the plot and characters. I think a number of us regard this entire show as unfortunate--personally, I regard the entire genre as unfortunate--but t his shouldn't affect how we handle it, if people who are willing to watch it are willing to write the articles. I gather from one of the comments above that there may be inaccuracies, and there solution is of course to fix them.
391:: "In general, a 'list of X' should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article." What I want to know is, why is it of encyclopedic value that Michelle bought
633:
I gather that we think it would be "encyclopedic" ... The list is appropriate to the parent topic... and as for it being "trivial"--who cares? If there's sources for notability, then it's in. Just because we might not "like" a topic doesn't mean it should be deleted. One editor's "trivia" is another editors "specialist topic" --
929:
Its a major sitcom that ran for 8 years. During this time there were obviously many plotlines and many characters. Conceivably we could get it all into one article, but that would probably be book-length. The only way to handle subjects of this sort is to divide up the material in some reasonable
632:
I hated Full House. But this is not a "list of indiscriminate information" because it focuses only on "characters" in "Full House" ... it is a widely-viewed television series that had plenty of outside news coverage and is therefore notable... We have plenty of lists of characters here already, so
909:
Editorial changes and merit can be discussed subsequently on the article discussion (I assume recurring was meant as features regularly by name, but not in person, not sure if this is defined in WP guidelines somewhere). Nonetheless, not sure how this warrants deletion. Does any character list (24
1005:
Per DGG. If we don't already have a notability guideline for list of characters maybe we should create one. This show, IMHO, was rather insipid but it was a major network leader and launched the careers of at least a handful of actors. So then it comes down to can the article be improved through
844:
I removed the original deletion, apologies if I went about it the wrong way, but my points pretty much covered here. List of characters from a TV show is notable on precedent if nothing else. Possibly clean-up required (though I don't object to it being as extensive as possible), but deletion
605:
for several points: this is basically an indiscriminate collection of trivial information of minor characters. There are no supporting references, and I personally doubt that you'd be able to find suitable references for many, if not all of these characters. Also under
757:
Until recently deleted, the primary Full House article had a sourced (Nielsen) list of ratings for the series, showing it was consistently within the top 30 shows. Why this was deleted I'm not sure, but surely is an indicator that it's not just
789:. As per my non-vote comment above, precedent has been set for articles of this nature for long-running series. Content issues can be handled at the article level. AFD is to determine if an article is viable, and based upon precedent it is.
870:
is seen only once in the series, portrayed by actress
Christie Houser in the episode Goodbye Mr. Bear in a home video, which depicts Pam and Danny returning from the hospital with newborn baby Michelle...," is listed under
583:. I agree with the reasoning provided by and the anon above. It might need some level of trimming, but spinning off character lists that would otherwise needlessly enlarge the main article is a valid use of
316:
610:, the whole article is written in-universe; if this were trimmed down to suitability under those guidelines, you'd end up with a bulletted list of characters and actor names, and again,
120:
342:
87:
82:
91:
892:
Wow. You've not made any contributions under this username in almost a year--welcome back. What motivated you to pick out this AfD to comment on upon your return?
74:
434:
are listed in both places. Shorty is a shining example of why this list should go, but the rest of it still qualifies IMO, even if it doesn't shine as brightly.
967:
Full House was a very popular show. Maybe not in Canada, but in the US, it ran for eight seasons, and the reruns are still shown at least twice a day.
866:
is notable, even if Full House is in fact notable enough to warrant all these sub-pages. Much of the information even appears defined improperly: "
824:
659:
with it." In order to demonstrate such a correlation, reliable sources need to be presented. News coverage of the show in general is already of
566:- this was one of the highest rated shows of its era. This content is entirely verifiable and useful. Some editors may wish to trim it a bit. -
524:: However precedent has been set for spinning off character pages and episode lists for TV series, especially long-running series, and
550:
78:
413:
character listed that is also covered in the main article? There are 40+ other characters referenced in the list. If Shorty is NN,
17:
366:
Lists of characters from notable network television shows are themselves sufficiently notable; merging would excessively enlarge
395:
for 221 dollars? Non-notable characters of a notable program are no more notable than non-notable citizens of a notable country.
1043:
1022:
997:
976:
958:
941:
919:
901:
884:
854:
836:
815:
798:
771:
748:
702:
680:
642:
624:
594:
575:
558:
537:
516:
498:
481:
460:
443:
426:
404:
379:
357:
331:
294:
268:
259:
Your position is clear, thanks. I disagree with it as both unnecessarily severe compared to editing and unsupported by policy.
254:
236:
218:
201:
184:
158:
140:
56:
667:
the notability of minor characters, any more than news coverage of my hometown—a tourist town, so it's popular, too!—makes
872:
867:
736:
621:
431:
392:
136:
70:
62:
1058:
36:
584:
827:. This seems like a valid spin-out from the main article. It could use some cleanup, but AFD is not for cleanup.
664:
525:
504:
1057:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
954:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
592:
571:
554:
192:
Given that this article is substantially larger than that section, on what basis do you assess sufficiency?
993:
915:
850:
767:
744:
676:
638:
512:
456:
439:
400:
290:
250:
214:
180:
823:
About a dozen characters appeared in the opening credits, and there were many other recurring characters
728:
388:
494:
949:
A useless list of characters and other trivia from a not very popular show. Completely un-encyclopedic.
690:
127:
Non-notable. Non encyclopedic. Trivial. Knowledge (XXG) is not a collection of useless information  —
474:
Trimming and cleanup is needed, but a list of characters from a long-running series is appropriate. --
1037:
911:
846:
763:
149:
There are many "list of characters in X" articles, though I've never seen one so incredibly bloated.
660:
655:, "Notability is distinct from 'fame,' 'importance,' or 'popularity,' although these may positively
950:
353:
327:
1007:
972:
897:
832:
811:
794:
698:
588:
567:
533:
422:
375:
264:
232:
197:
154:
989:
880:
740:
672:
634:
618:
508:
452:
435:
396:
286:
246:
210:
176:
132:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
607:
414:
693:
such TV shows are presumably notable. Places that really exist are inherently notable, too.
490:
611:
602:
278:
224:
1031:
724:
716:
712:
448:
227:, then, the proper course of action is to trim the excess, rather than delete the list.
349:
323:
652:
968:
937:
893:
828:
807:
790:
694:
529:
418:
371:
260:
228:
193:
150:
862:
or at least trim severely. Bloated article that has little relevant to do with why
876:
762:
popularity? Perhaps that removal should be reverted also, was claimed as "fandom".
615:
128:
50:
108:
656:
863:
732:
475:
367:
242:
172:
451:
that this stuff is notable, however, and I'd be happy to soften my stance.
528:
is not applicable to pages that are spun-off from a main in this fashion.
932:
209:: On the basis provided in the nomination. The list is overkill.
1051:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
614:, this is not a fan-site, there are suitable places for such.
806:
a perfectly justifiable fork of a notable television series.
727:
a show is without sources). My town is notable, but I don't
489:- Trim if necessary, but its a notable and acceptable list.
875:
even though she only appeared once—clearly not recurring.
988:. I can judge only if a serious cleanup is performed. --
317:
list of
Fictional characters-related deletion discussions
711:
I don't doubt that the show itself is notable, but per
651:
Don't confuse notability with popularity. According to
115:
104:
100:
96:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1061:). No further edits should be made to this page.
343:list of Television-related deletion discussions
8:
825:who are mentioned in independent sources
723:popularity, because we don't truly know
715:, not per its popularity independent of
503:Notable per what sources? Notability is
341:: This debate has been included in the
315:: This debate has been included in the
409:Had you noticed that Steve Hale is the
273:Changed to "Weak delete" per Zagalejo.
549:, cleanup is not a deletion criteria.
171:: Material is sufficiently covered in
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
241:When you trim the excess, you have
245:. Hence my original Delete !vote.
24:
910:etc) serve to prove notability?
1:
1044:22:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
1023:00:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
998:08:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
977:19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
959:07:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
942:08:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
920:11:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
902:08:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
885:06:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
855:02:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
837:23:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
816:17:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
799:16:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
772:14:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
749:18:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
703:17:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
681:17:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
643:16:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
625:11:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
595:09:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
585:Knowledge (XXG):Summary style
576:07:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
559:06:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
538:16:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
517:03:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
499:03:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
482:02:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
461:03:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
444:03:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
427:02:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
405:02:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
380:02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
358:02:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
332:02:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
295:11:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
269:02:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
255:02:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
237:02:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
219:02:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
202:02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
185:01:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
159:01:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
141:00:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
71:List of Full House characters
63:List of Full House characters
57:03:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
387:: In other words, it passes
1030:per DGG and Paul McDonald.
1078:
1054:Please do not modify it.
663:to an encyclopedia, and
32:Please do not modify it.
417:, not the entire list.
277:, a source! Still, per
1006:regular editing? Yep.
845:absolutely incorrect.
737:Freddy/Freida the Fish
507:from the show itself.
285:independent coverage.
243:Full_House#Characters
173:Full_House#Characters
873:Recurring characters
432:The main characters
281:, I'd like to see
44:The result was
731:that notability.
661:limited relevance
393:Shorty the Donkey
360:
346:
334:
320:
1069:
1056:
1040:
1034:
1019:
1013:
735:is notable, but
725:just how popular
479:
347:
337:
321:
311:
118:
112:
94:
53:
34:
1077:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1059:deletion review
1052:
1038:
1032:
1017:
1011:
986:Neutral for now
526:WP:NOTINHERITED
505:WP:NOTINHERITED
477:
114:
85:
69:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1075:
1073:
1064:
1063:
1047:
1046:
1025:
1000:
982:
981:
980:
979:
962:
961:
951:MiltonP Ottawa
944:
924:
923:
922:
904:
857:
839:
818:
801:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
752:
751:
719:(actually its
706:
705:
684:
683:
646:
645:
627:
597:
578:
568:Richard Cavell
561:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
484:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
446:
361:
335:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
161:
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1074:
1062:
1060:
1055:
1049:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1041:
1035:
1029:
1026:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1014:
1004:
1001:
999:
995:
991:
987:
984:
983:
978:
975:
974:
970:
966:
965:
964:
963:
960:
956:
952:
948:
945:
943:
939:
935:
934:
928:
925:
921:
917:
913:
908:
905:
903:
899:
895:
891:
888:
887:
886:
882:
878:
874:
869:
865:
861:
858:
856:
852:
848:
843:
840:
838:
835:
834:
830:
826:
822:
819:
817:
813:
809:
805:
802:
800:
796:
792:
788:
785:
784:
773:
769:
765:
761:
756:
755:
754:
753:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
709:
708:
707:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
687:
686:
685:
682:
678:
674:
670:
666:
665:doesn't imply
662:
658:
654:
650:
649:
648:
647:
644:
640:
636:
635:Paul McDonald
631:
628:
626:
623:
620:
617:
613:
609:
604:
601:
598:
596:
593:
590:
586:
582:
579:
577:
573:
569:
565:
562:
560:
556:
552:
548:
547:Keep or merge
545:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
520:
519:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
501:
500:
496:
492:
488:
485:
483:
480:
473:
470:
462:
458:
454:
450:
447:
445:
441:
437:
433:
430:
429:
428:
424:
420:
416:
415:delete Shorty
412:
408:
407:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
383:
382:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
362:
359:
355:
351:
344:
340:
336:
333:
329:
325:
318:
314:
310:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
271:
270:
266:
262:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
239:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
221:
220:
216:
212:
208:
205:
204:
203:
199:
195:
191:
188:
187:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
166:
162:
160:
156:
152:
148:
145:
144:
143:
142:
138:
134:
130:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1053:
1050:
1036:
1027:
1015:
1009:
1002:
990:Magioladitis
985:
971:
946:
931:
926:
906:
889:
859:
841:
831:
820:
803:
786:
759:
741:Cosmic Latte
720:
673:Cosmic Latte
668:
629:
599:
580:
563:
551:76.66.201.13
546:
521:
509:Cosmic Latte
486:
471:
453:Cosmic Latte
436:Cosmic Latte
410:
397:Cosmic Latte
389:WP:LISTCRUFT
384:
363:
338:
312:
287:Cosmic Latte
282:
274:
247:Cosmic Latte
211:Cosmic Latte
206:
189:
177:Cosmic Latte
168:
164:
163:
146:
126:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
691:WP:OUTCOMES
491:Umbralcorax
449:Demonstrate
283:significant
169:Weak delete
912:dpwoodford
864:Full House
847:Dpwoodford
764:dpwoodford
733:Full House
368:Full House
671:notable.
657:correlate
350:Raven1977
324:Raven1977
969:Zagalejo
894:Jclemens
829:Zagalejo
808:Alansohn
791:23skidoo
760:presumed
721:presumed
695:Jclemens
530:23skidoo
419:Jclemens
372:Jclemens
261:Jclemens
229:Jclemens
194:Jclemens
151:Some guy
147:Comment:
137:contribs
121:View log
907:Comment
890:Comment
877:Bolwerk
729:inherit
616:Yngvarr
608:WP:FICT
522:Comment
385:Comment
275:Finally
207:Comment
190:Comment
129:Jeff G.
88:protect
83:history
52:MBisanz
947:Delete
860:Delete
612:WP:NOT
603:WP:NOT
600:Delete
279:WP:GNG
225:WP:ATD
165:Delete
116:delete
92:delete
1039:Cobra
1033:Glass
804:Keep'
717:WP:RS
713:WP:RS
223:Per,
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
1028:Keep
1010:Banj
1003:Keep
994:talk
955:talk
938:talk
927:Keep
916:talk
898:talk
881:talk
851:talk
842:Keep
821:Keep
812:talk
795:talk
787:Keep
768:talk
745:talk
699:talk
689:Per
677:talk
653:WP:N
639:talk
630:keep
581:Keep
572:talk
564:Keep
555:talk
534:talk
513:talk
495:talk
487:Keep
478:ASEM
472:Keep
457:talk
440:talk
423:talk
411:only
401:talk
376:talk
364:Keep
354:talk
339:Note
328:talk
313:Note
291:talk
265:talk
251:talk
233:talk
215:talk
198:talk
181:talk
155:talk
133:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
46:keep
1008:--
973:^^^
933:DGG
868:Pam
833:^^^
622:(c)
619:(t)
589:Mgm
348:--
345:.
322:--
319:.
1018:oi
996:)
957:)
940:)
918:)
900:)
883:)
853:)
814:)
797:)
770:)
747:)
739:?
701:)
679:)
669:me
641:)
587:-
574:)
557:)
536:)
515:)
497:)
459:)
442:)
425:)
403:)
378:)
370:.
356:)
330:)
293:)
267:)
253:)
235:)
217:)
200:)
183:)
175:.
157:)
139:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
1016:b
1012:e
992:(
953:(
936:(
914:(
896:(
879:(
849:(
810:(
793:(
766:(
743:(
697:(
675:(
637:(
591:|
570:(
553:(
532:(
511:(
493:(
476:M
455:(
438:(
421:(
399:(
374:(
352:(
326:(
289:(
263:(
249:(
231:(
213:(
196:(
179:(
153:(
135:|
131:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.