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. --Core desat 01:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of significant others of Friends[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fancruft/listcruft. The previous deletion keep !votes consist mainly of petty reasons such as "it's interesting", "it's of relevance to thousands of Wikipedians" and "it's a character list from a notable show". The notability of the show does not affect the notability of the topic (i.e. Significant others in Friends). Most of the list is composed of minor characters, who ought not to be included. The more significant characters have relevant info found on the main characters' pages. •97198 talk 08:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not the place for every tiny piece of information about a tv show.Ridernyc 10:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft ff m 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the notability of the show doesn't make lists of every subset of characters notable. I assume that each of the lead characters have articles; list off their romantic entanglements there if need be. Otto4711 16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge each section to the relevant character article per Otto. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Friends triva/minutae. Crazysuit 00:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Before voting for it to be deleted, have a look at the number of articles that link to it. Deleting it would undoubtedly spawn a bunch of short articles for the more notable characters in the list, and WP policy dictates that lists are preferable. Those who think this article should go, might also consider nominating this one. I would prefer removing info on non-notable and non-recurring significant others (or reducing them to one-line blurbs), which is how the article started off. Since I don't think there's any meaningful way to integrate the information into the articles for the major Friends characters, this article should stay, in one form or another. --Aramգուտանգ 10:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links are misleading because the page was included in the navtemplate, which causes it to link to every other page with the navtemplate. Many of the links are to user pages (which aren't relevant) and redirect pages (which can be changed as needed). Looking at Rachel_Green#Relationships for instance it looks like there's a spot designated in the article for information on significant others and I assume that it's the same for the other Friends. Otto4711 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are 127 pages linking to the article, and only 27 articles that use the Friends navtamplate (heh, interesting coincidence with the numbers). Of the remaining 100, not that many are user and redirect pages (I haven't counted, but it's 10-20 tops). I agree that the less notable characters should probably be deleted, shortened, or merged into Rachel/Phoebe/Monica/etc, but there are at least 7 major characters in the list that would definitely need their own pages if this one is deleted (look for the characters with infoboxes next to them). So I'd have to say that the "meaningful list is better than small individual pages" guideline applies. At the very least, you have to agree that merge is a better option than delete in this case. --Aramգուտանգ 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already noted that the significants should be in the articles for the individual friends. Otto4711 16:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. Multiple cruft-types, WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 01:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because such arguments as this one from the earlier discussion that ended in an overwhelming keep still have validity at present in addition to the significance of this particular and central aspect of this notable and popular show to its plot and structure. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 29 October 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.