Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Roach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. There is no consensus here to delete anything, and a marginal at best consensus here to merge some of the minor articles into a parent article (but that's for the talkpages of the respective articles). Perhaps a new article called "Minor characters of The Bill" is in order? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Roach

Procedural nomination for contested prod. No evidence of notability. Written primarily in-universe with no real world relevance. No third party sources. Fails WP:FICTION, WP:V and WP:RS.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Quick Robin to the Bat Cave (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: A anon IP editor has added Nathaniel Roberts to this AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep and expand or merge' -I see the argument of notability but they are characters from a notable British TV series and are no different to many of the character articles we have on countless American sitcoms etc. Needs some out of universe information though, a merge into a list would be best but something tells me there are so many characters that this would become too bloated ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep There may be notability concerns on fictional characters, but the long-running series is definitely notable. One might refer to WP:Simpsons for precedent. These articles represent a considerable amount of fairly well-done editing; a decision to delete should not be done lightly. Plvekamp (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. That's two different arguments. A long-running series is notable and it already has an article. The notability concerns are about these particular characters which have unsouced , in-universe "biographies" with no real world relevance. Quick Robin to the Bat Cave (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment There is a wikiproject for these articles, WP:WikiProject The Bill Plvekamp (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite to be out-of-universe. Comment: should be renamed in favor of real persons if there is such a case. Lars T. (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Redirect all to the tv series, while the show might be notable, the characters themselves have not gained coverage in reliable sources. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This is exactly the point the "keep" !votes fail to understand. Quick Robin to the Bat Cave (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep all pending the applicable expansion. To my knowledge the recent arbcom injunction did not result in a ban on these articles. If the articles have been banned, there are certainly less notable series to be targeted first. I won't accuse anyone of WP:OSTRICH but The Bill is on par with Law & Order with notability - series and character-wise - in its country of origin. 23skidoo (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This discussion is not about whether the show is notable. This is about whether these particular characters are notable. There are no third party sources backing up any such claim. Quick Robin to the Bat Cave (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Either keep and expand or Merge/redact/refactor all into List of recurring characters in The Bill or similar. It's a fairly major series, so articles on its main characters are not out of the question. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. There is already a List of The Bill characters. Basically a laundry list but it fulfils the function of a "list" that would otherwise make the main article too bloated. It does appear to list all characters portrayed by contracted actors (not guest stars). Quick Robin to the Bat Cave (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I have noticed some other characters pages have already been deleted as in Phil Hunter and Ramani DeCosta to mention just a few. I agree with Blofeld, this is a very notable series and i personally always look at the page for the info. available (date first appeared) as this can hardly be found elsewhere on the net. Users have gone to the trouble of including images for many of the characters, this would be a big loss if deleted. Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 10:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. As has already been discussed, the notability of the series is not in question. The undeniable issue is that these articles fail (miserably) WP:FICTION, WP:V and WP:RS. The images have all been copied from www.thebillbios.co.uk (so it would not be a "loss" at all) which already has in-universe character biographies. Quick Robin to the Bat Cave (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete All or Merge All with List of The Bill characters. These articles do not cite any primary source, so they fail WP:V and their content fails WP:OR. They contain only trivial plot summaries and so fail WP:NOT#PLOT, or just details of the actors and so fail WP:NOT#GUIDE. None of the articles cite any reliable secondary sources and so they fail WP:N. The information in these articles can commonly be found in TV Guides and fansites, but falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Keepthe major characters, merge the others. Delete none of them. DGG (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. What is the rationale for keeping any unsourced fancruft? There is no valid reason to keep anything that blatantly fails WP:FICTION, WP:V and WP:RS. Quick Robin to the Bat Cave (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep any that can be found to have real-world information in any reliable source. Redirect the rest to the TV series, or an article on the characters collectively. Deletion is excessively rude and not appropriate. Encourage the contributors to read WP:WAF. Review the contribution history of the articles in question and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Roach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ted Roach

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search