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The result was withdrawn by nom. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rugrats characters[edit]

All information is already included in the main Rugrats article. So my vote is: Delete TheProf | Talk 13:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Garr1984 (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a sub-article of Rugrats (and it also may come in handy when someone eventually nominates the individual character articles for deletion). --Pixelface (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a merge target for all the characters, who are probably not notable enough for their own articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a merge target for all the characters, per the slowly growing consensus that this is the best way to deal with fictional characters who do not have independent notability outside of being part of the ensemble. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this article is not deleted, another editor is going to remove the character section of the main Rugrats article. Without it, that article is going to look terrible! Because basically, it will have very little notable content left. Thanks TheProf | Talk 14:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the Rugrats article not currently in this article can be merged here. A ((main)) template can be left in the Rugrats article pointing to this one, like the one seen here: The Simpsons#Characters. And I have to disagree with Quasirandom's idea of the "growing consensus." --Pixelface (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if this article survives the AfD vote, which it looks like it will! I will edit the character section in Rugrats in the same style as The Simpson. Thanks TheProf | Talk 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can, if you want to, withdraw this AfD nomination, and start reworking the character section in the main article right now. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to this. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to withdraw this Afd. However, i don't know how! Maybe an admin should now close this vote. TheProf | Talk 19:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would make more sense to summarize the characters in the Rugrats article and link to this, than to delete this article and rely on the list in Rugrats. - Bilby (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's nonsense to remove it. Why would you?-DANO- (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Per all above Carter | Talk to me 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ArbCom injunction. Powers ^T 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just EC'd with someone, and that answered my question of whether or not this falls under the arbcom injunction about TV episodes and characters, so the discussion should probably be tagged (I don't know the template for it), even though it looks like it may start snowing soon. However, I don't think that the injunction is really supposed to be used as an argument for keeping, as otherwise there'd be an injunction against bringing the articles to AfD altogether. LaMenta3 (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (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.