Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/28 Days/Weeks Later 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 keep -- JForget 01:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

28 Days/Weeks Later Characters

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the 28 days/weeks movie articles. As such, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this list page is a far superior option than dozens of individual character pages. It shows restraint, so we should too. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Stuff like this is allowed, and we've been transitioning to lists for this stuff. ViperSnake151 01:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But do you feel that this list would pass notability, meaning is there a chance that we will be getting any development info like how these characters were developed, or interviews with the actors, or thinks like that? That's my concern. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This article can take two paths; if the topic remains fresh in the public's mind, sources will accrue, but if it fades, nobody will care if the infomation is merged to the main article and this article deleted. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which do you see it taking? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fading. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions.   —User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to List of 28 Days/Weeks Later Characters Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This awful article has been tagged for a long time to try to get the fanboys/girls to add sources and drop the in-universe tone, to no avail. However, before I stepped in back in September, the article was spawning dozens of crufty in-universe fansite sub articles on each and every spit and cough of a character. There's no way of preventing this tide of Wikia-style trivia, other than rigorously forcing it back into this list and regularly pruning the paragraphs down to readable, cruftless size. This list is better than the alternative, put it that way. Oh, and agree with the rename proposed by Kyaa. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 10:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (possibly rename per Kyaa the Catlord). De-cruftifying can be done in cleanup. My experience is that as soon as some notable actors have appeared in a franchise, there are third-party sources commenting on that. I don't question that these sources exist, and therefore recommend a straight keep. – sgeureka t•c 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per most of the others here. Rray (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets not guess, and if anyone has any actual references, lets find them and post them here so we can establish notability, not guess about it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Redvers has it right. From any reasonable perspective this is better than the alternatives. Why don;t pe3ople compromise, and accept articles like this? DGG (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it isn't any good? Because it doesn't meet the requirements of wikipedia policy? I would agree to keep it if it has promise of improving, as many such lists do, but so far I'm not convinced that it will as there has been no proof of any reference or even the promise of them later. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2007 (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.