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 Keep but keep the list to the absolute minimum (or preferably incorporate it into the text) and expand the discussion of the use of unseen characters as a plot device and so on. Fram (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen character (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Nothing but a list of unseen characters with no specifics. Even fourth-level characters like Margaret's husband on Becker are listed; why not, say, Gazpacho's mother in the cartoon Chowder? None of the sources actually pertains to the concept, as common as it is, and I don't see any sources that actually go beyond a dicdef of the concept. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete oh please delete this. It's survived two prior AFDs under the grounds of "improve it", and it just appears that it is fundamentally impossible to improve this. Unsourced additions are deleted, added, and the horrid cycle continues, because nobody (including myself) is ultimately willing to take a stand and risk either 3RR or WP:OWN or any of those types of barriers. Yngvarr (c) 22:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listing all possible unseen characters is silly. Articles on unseen characters can be tied together with a category. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I am the same person who nominated this previously (as User:VivioFateFan), I may have some bias... but whatever. Anyway, the problems that I suggested in my last are still present. In addition, if all of the other material is removed, all we have left would basically be a dictdef. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteNeutral Two prior AfD's and the current state is all that's there? I'd be OK with stubbing it and letting editors expand into the literary/narrative device, rather than putting another crufty list in place. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to neutral. It's getting there, but could still use more work. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Delete the list and leave TWO examples. Right now the article should be called List of unseen characters and should be deleted. They are still chances to improve it. If nothing changes soon, then delete it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth List of unseen characters has previously been deleted. Yngvarr (c) 11:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per clear consensus to keep in TWO previous AfDs, What Wikipedia is, and Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world). Fairly considerable reader interest as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe so, but as it exists, it is basically a dictionary definition, and is filled with tons of Original research. Also consensus can change NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 02:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of which seem surmountable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would challenge that statement, based on the fact that it's been submitted to three AFDs so far. If it's improvable, why has it not been improved thus far? The concept is valid, the execution is not. Yngvarr (c) 09:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is what matters and if the topic has been covered in dissertations and published books, then we use them to improve them. Plenty of articles had been stubs for months or even years before being substantially improved. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's improvable, although at the rate these AfDs are coming it will probably be deleted and recreated a few times before the nice article it could be is realized. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubbify Throw away the list as listcruft, but (edit: was stubbified/trimmed, change to Keep) I guess the concept in itself is notable for inclusion (see the incoming links and interwikis). – sgeureka ^t•c 05:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - once the list is removed there is nothing left but a definition --T-rex 05:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then keep the list. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list is the last thing I would want to see kept --T-rex 14:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hope that's hyperbole as trust me there have been some really, really despicable articles that we deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. List is non-notable (find any source for these?) and impossible to maintain. Deceptive title, as is a list - should not even be transwikied to wiktionary, as is not a term in common use.Yobmod (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the article's reference section. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead doesn't contain any refs. Only the characters themselves are referenced, and some of those references are dubious. The Colombo reference contains nothing about his unseen wife, and the Star Trek: Enterprise is based on fan speculation. I deleted a significant portion of the unreferenced material earlier. Yngvarr (c) 18:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll add references momentarily as I just did a search and there are actually plenty out there. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mediocre dictdef, then Yet Another Indiscriminate List of [adjective] [noun]. If someone could suggest something to go in this article besides a dictdef (besides a dreadful list) I could be moved, however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has not only been trimmed down to a manageable level since the last AfD debate, but context and sourcing have been added. There is nothing wrong with having a list of examples within an article about a subject, nor do we have a "throw away the list" policy on Wikipedia. As the article notes, the unseen character is a common feature in fiction, particularly television shows and book series, and there is a purpose for the plot device of having a character whom the viewer must picture in his or her imagination. Mandsford (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is not that anyone disputes that unseen characters are common; it's just that there doesn't seem to be anything to say about them other than that they're characters who aren't present in the narrative for whatever reason. This article suffers from a bit of Orange cat syndrome: there are many cats which are orange and some of them are noteworthy, but is there anything you can say in orange cat that doesn't boil down to "Orange cats are cats which are orange, many cats are orange"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I can appreciate what you're saying. I think what distinguishes this from the orange cat is the "for whatever reason" question. Why did the producers of Frasier not simply cast an actress to portray Maris? Why do we not hear the person on the other line when Bob Newhart is talking on the phone? The unseen character allows the viewer to use his or her imagination, and, pardoxically, is someone that we "look for" but hope never to find. I guess my point is that one can say more about an unseen character besides the observation that it is (a) a character and (b) unseen. Mandsford (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any source you could point to that unifies the reasoning, though? There's no evidence of a trend, just a shared trait. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unsourced dictdef with a list tacked on. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has a referenced section and thus is not unsourced. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, the dictdef is unsourced. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no inclination or intention of fixing it. If you think it is worthy of fixing it then you fix it. Sincerely and best DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have been, but think it would be nice if instead of just commenting here others might help. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or at least merge: Wikipedia has a number of lists of things and I see no reason why a list of unseen characters is not acceptable. However, if the list should be deleted, I don't think the definition of an unseen character should be deleted as well. If the definition of the unseen character is too short for a whole article, then at the very least I think the definition should be merged to another article, like fictional character. Q0 (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: I found a number of sources on Google books, Google news, Amazon.com, and Academic Search Complete, and have begun adding them, please note nominated versus current version: [1]. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, but what are you going to say about this that you can't say about an orange cat? The article is still "Unseen characters are characters which are unseen. Here's a list." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The topic of "unseen characters" has been the titular subject of dissertations and university published books; I would think these sources now that they have been presented can be used to supply the context of any list. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You evaded my question there. What do you expect to put into this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I am honestly not sure what you are asking. I did add some references to the article and expanded the lead some. I guess additional information from about the history of unseen characters and scholarly reception of them can be further added. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article has really seen some improvement, showing that this can indeed be more than a dicdef. Nice work, peeps. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it has. Unfortunately, the RS'ing has given us a smaller list of unseen characters primarily from mainstream American Television. I'm not sure that's as much of an improvement in scope, even if the referencing has been improved substantially. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep how many times is this going to be nominated? Give it a rest. The unseen character is a notable theater concept, that any performing arts text book or class would cover, therefore it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. This is also sourced.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It would make just as much sense to try to delete an article on automobiles because it mentions only a sampling of the possible models. If more or better examples are wanted, go add them. Deletion is not a way to avoid editing. DGG (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More examples are what was removed. This was a cross between an article and a list, and not doing a very good job of being either. You do make an excellent point that the unseen character in theater could use more coverage in the article than it currently is receiving. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A common literary device that has been the subject of academic study, such as the first reference in the article and this paper. And let's not forget the archetypal unseen character. The examples should of course be restricted to those that can be referenced, and if the list gets too long it can be split out per WP:SUMMARY. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The concept is, as above commetnators have pointed out, eminently encyclo-worthy. The list perhaps should be pared down, and more literary examples set out. Keep. -- HenriLobineau (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list should perhaps be changed to prose, but the concept itself is notable. However, this shouldn't turn back into "every unseen character ever"; comprehensive lists like this belong on the TV Tropes Wiki [2], not Wikipedia. I think a link to the relevant article at TV Tropes Wiki might funnel some of that listing to site that actually encourages that sort of thing. --Phirazo 16:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For me is important that there is a clear consensus that the article should not contain a huge list of unseen characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article, but shorten the lists, even if that results in only a stub. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Despite the list section still needing work, the article is decent. I will suggest, that the list portion of this article could be drastically improved by not only mentioning the character, but also explaining with a source statement, which the character is important. The lead section of this article itself states that: They are continuing characters — characters who are currently in frequent interaction with the other characters and who influence current story events — who are never directly observed by the audience but are only described by other characters. By providing arguments which support this statement, the article will be much stronger. Flibirigit (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't think we should be deciding here whether the list characters should be short or long. The criterion for inclusion should be that reliable independent sources have significant coverage of the character. We can't know in advance how long a list that will result in. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic WP:IINFO. MiB makes a very relevant point above with respect to references and sources, and the admin closing this debate should give weight to his views which I think make a very sensible and compelling reference to core policies; most of the keep votes are variants of ILIKEIT. Eusebeus (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: While many of the sensible and compelling keep arguments regarding this encyclopedic article focus on policy based reasons, a number of the delete votes seem to be variations of "I don't like it." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:IDONTLIKEIT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT! - MORBO 22:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, "I don't like it" is not a good reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you even read the essays you link? "This is a dictdef and indiscriminate info" is a long way from "I don't like this." It's dishonest to imply otherwise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  As has already been pointed out in the discussion, it is more than dictionary definition and is discriminate information. Saying otherwise does not make it so. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I still don't see it as other than an ordinary definition. There are few refs, but they don't really reinforce what is already stated, which can ultimately be boiled down to a single phrase: an unseen character is an unseen character. Pointing out usage of an unseen character, ala Voltaire et al, does not really expand on the concept, which still remains a character which is unseen. Yngvarr (c) 22:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It is more than just a definition in that the concept has been covered in multiple reliable secondary sources. They show that it is not merely a character which is unseen, but one that is notable, because it appears in Voltaire from the eighteenth century and today in modern television programs, i.e. it is a notable dramatic concept with a long history. These sources can and should be used to continue developing this article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It's time for NOT ADDRESSING THE ARGUMENT COMICS!

  T-rex: You say it's a dictdef.

  T-rex: But see? It's notable! *stomps on a cabin*

  Dromiceiomimus: But...nobody said it wasn't notable. It's a reflexive dictionary definition. Utahraptor 18:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a heads up: "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary article, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary articles are short, and that short article and dictionary article are therefore equivalent." Ford MF (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. After reading this debate, I was prepared for an article in much rougher shape than what's actually there. It's an adequately sourced, encyclopedic entry on a clearly notable element of dramaturgy. If "needs cleanup" wasn't a valid excuse for deletion twice before, it isn't one now. Just because said cleanup isn't happening on a timetable the nominator would like, doesn't mean it's not a reiteration of the same invalid argument. Ford MF (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of reliable sources covering the topic, the article is more than a dictdef, and it has been improved since each nomination. DHowell (talk) 21:46, 30 June 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.