Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whatnot (Fictional Characters)

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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatnot (Fictional Characters)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established. Full of original research. Only link is to another wiki (wikis are not considered reliable sources for establishing notability). SQGibbon (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although I'd like the Whatnot page kept, I had previously kept the Whatnots of the Muppets in a separate article and suggest the Whatnot Muppets be spared from deletion since they are customizable like the Anything Muppets from Sesame Street and the Unisaurs from Dinosaurs. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:58, February 3 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the history I see that it's only recently that the stuff about Marios Bros. and the "other universe" stuff was added (all clearly unsourced original research). But even if that stuff is removed the remaining information about the Muppet Whatnots still lacks any reliable sources. SQGibbon (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet all we got for sources for the Whatnot Muppets is the Muppet Wiki. I still think the Whatnot Muppets should be spared. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:20, February 6 (2013)

Keep 2 - There's other whatnots besides Muppets like the Mario Bros. universe and all throughout the world. There's lots of them spread across including the 3D animated characters or something real life. Escape from Planet Earth was the known cgi movie that had whatnots as aliens. Some of the other ones are naturally Humanoids but Planet 51 has green whatnots there of course. I would suggest keep it.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that none of this information has any reliable sources associated with it and thus fails basic notability. Provide reliable independent sources that discuss the subject in significant detail then it might belong in this encyclopedia, otherwise it shouldn't be here. SQGibbon (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your not helping, some of those aren't in the sites. Even though they don't have that information, just type it in just like of what it resembles to as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyLogolover2011 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know whom your response was directed toward nor what it even means, but the main point remains -- there are no reliable sources in the article to support the claims made nor any that establish the notability of the subject. That problem needs to be fixed for the article to survive the deletion process. SQGibbon (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It might help to clarify: is it a list of characters that are called Whatnots (irrespective of what that might mean in different contexts)? Or is it about a type of character (that may or may not be called Whatnots in their respective contexts), and if so, what's the definition for that type and what's the source for the term? —Tamfang (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally started the page under Whatnot (Muppet) to classify the Whatnots that are in the franchises of The Muppets until HappyLogolover2011 redirected it to Whatnot (Fictional Characters) to cover the other Whatnots. I still think that the Whatnots from the Muppets should've had their own page like the Anything Muppets from Sesame Street. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:48, February 9 2013 (UTC)
  - I'll paraphrase my question: Are "the other Whatnots" any characters called Whatnots, or characters that resemble the Muppet Whatnots in some important (but unstated) way? —Tamfang (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a steaming pile of WP:OR with a healthy dose of WP:MADEUP. "From any universe"? Mario? Errrrr...can we have a big huge Darth Vader-esque "Nooooooooooooooooo!"? Seriously - this needs to be WP:BLOWNUP and the Muppet page - which are the things that are, y'know, actually called Whatnots - kept and/or discussed seperatly. Bluntly this article as it currently exists needs to be speedied as something that was made up one day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bushranger. This is an OR-only WP:CFORK of Character (arts). The newly split article at Whatnot (Muppet) is in need of major work as well. -Thibbs (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Bushranger and Thibbs have raised very valid points. In addition, apart from the obvious original research issues, it is still unclear what a "whatnot" actually is, apart from the Muppet characters. Also unclear is how anything else would qualify as a whatnot. If we are to go by the hopelessly broad definition currently present in the article, "characters that are associated with any universe," then practically any character from any form of vaguely plot-based media would seemingly qualify as one of these. CtP (t • c) 21:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a vengeance. Pure original research, as trying to apply a term for a generic, usually background Muppet to any character in media, even an undoubtedly lead character like Mario. There is absolutely nothing that they have in common. This isn't just original research, it is really terrible and dumb original research. oknazevad (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2013 (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.