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 Delete.   jj137 ^♠ 03:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sidekicks[edit]

List of sidekicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

One of the indiscrimative lists of loosely related topics, fails WP:NOT#INFO, anyways what indicates a "sidekick", survived a prior AFD because the user didn't give a reason for deletion Delete Secret ^account 00:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, this is clearly an indiscriminate list of loosely associated topics, not to mention that "sidekicks" is original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is non-encyclopedic content—just a list, and it's unreferenced to boot.—Mumia-w-18 (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Although this could be vaguely construed as a valid topic for an article, it really does seem like something that would either be more appropriate for a category, or just not on Wikipedia at all. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment After rereading the previous AfD, I noticed that someone mentioned that there is a Category:Fictional sidekicks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Although this article is a little broader in topic (how many real sidekicks have there been?) I think this is sufficient enough to justify changing my vote to a regular delete. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Potentially interesting, but unencyclopedic nevertheless. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Potentially interesting... but still uninteresting. I got kidesick at the number of times I saw the word "sidekick" to describe each entry. In this case, it's kind of like someone's recurring description of the friend of the person with top billing. I wouldn't be surprised to see "Simon Peter: sidekick to Jesus" Mandsford (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TenPoundHammer. JJL (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a potentially useful list -- and its certainly not "loosely related" to have a similar narrative role in different stories -- but to be usable, it needs to have each entry in the list sourced to someone's analysis that the character is a sidekick. I'm on the fence as to whether it's best to try to clean up the list as it is or wipe the wall without prejudice for recreation one sourced brick at a time. Weak keep —Quasirandom (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The scope of this list does seem to be incredibly broad. First off, it does little to define what it means by "sidekick", a word which can be vague and unclear. In addition, it does not even restrict itself to one form of fiction or media, spreading out into all areas instead. As such, this list has the logical potential to include any character who is in some way an assistant or companion to any fictional hero or protagonist. Even more so, the list does not even draw the line at fiction, extending to history as well, which would mean that this list stands to include any person, real or fictional, who has played the role of an assistant to someone else, which really isn't a list at all. There you have it, there are three points at which this list breaks up into different directions, to the point where it no longer covers one specific, narrow subject. As such, it should be deleted, unless all of these points of divergence could be eliminated, at which point it would be an entirely different list altogether. Calgary (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and the comments from TenPoundHammer and Calgary. Mh29255 (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per WP:NOT#IINFO and the subjectivity of the concept of the 'sidekick'.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsalvageable list cruft--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 18:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TenPoundHammer. Russ (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No serious prospect of this ever being completed, and a permanently incomplete list is just an indiscriminate collection of information. Moyabrit (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I think it would be better to improve the main article rather than maintain this one. --Lenticel ^(talk) 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per organization, notability, and verifiability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain Secret ^account 20:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course. Organization: organized alphabetically and contains a contents on top. Notability: sidekicks are frequently used as a major plot device in a variety of media and as a reference guide, we provide such material as a reference. Verifiability: obviously sources exist for the items on this list and so we just need to add sources, rather than destroy the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Organization isn't a reason for keeping anything, and sources exist for everything, that doesn't mean it should have an article Secret ^account 13:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This fails WP:NOT#INFO. Source it all you want, that's not the biggest issue here. You can source just about anything, that doesn't instantly mean it saves the article from deletion. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This page is unique on the Web and is very useful. --The Cunctator (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USEFUL Secret ^account 13:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, this is a list of loosely associated trivia. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:35, 23 December 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.