Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Williams (Coronation Street)


 * 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   no consensus. it looks like it could be deleted or redirected; but, if someone is, essentially, vandalizing the redirects, a better approach is probably simply requesting protection for the redirect. slakr \ talk / 06:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Billy Williams (Coronation Street)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable character, Fails notability. Anonymous IP reverted conversation to redirect. Redirection is not really needed since character is very minor. No media coverage, no real world information, no third party sources. Magioladitis (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —Magioladitis (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I just took a look at the Coronation Street characters category. Although one could argue WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS can't be used as a defence, the fact is I don't see any reason why this one character is being singled out among the dozens listed. If someone wants to push for a mass deletion ... even that wouldn't work because some characters may be more notable than others. A better idea might be to try and reach consensus on a "minor characters" article. As it stands I see no reason who single this one out. 23skidoo (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment for relisting. I stand by my original opinion, only because I feel something more organized needs to happen besides picking a single article out of dozens to nominate. Another issue is the fact that Coronation Street is an institution in Great Britain; therefore one must be careful not to fall victim to WP:OSTRICH; I've seen similar mistakes made regarding character articles from Doctor Who, for example. Again, no prejudice against a relisting or revisiting of this article later; I just don't see the sense of it being the only one AFD'd. 23skidoo (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:RS etc. I reason that the other bad CS articles should also be deleted (or be merged where appropriate) instead of this one kept. Cleanup needs to start somewhere. – sgeureka t•c 08:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * comment The last days an anonymous IP account, a sock puppet of a blocked user, reverted some (maybe many?) redirects. Coronation street characters need a serious clean-up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  treelo  radda  11:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List_of_Coronation_Street_characters, along with all the other nn Coronation Street character articles. If a minor characters article needs to be broken out, so be it.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  00:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete a completely non-notable fictional character. RMHED (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge or redirect to a listing into a combination article, breaking it into parts if necessary--the question of how to arrange them is for the talk pages. Every named character there should have at least a redirect, so deletion without it is inappropriate. The onus is on the nom to indicate why a minor character shouldn't have a redirect. The reason why they should is that people may well come across the name--and how will they know it's minor if not here? Yes, I know there are a great many characters, but fortunately a/we are not paper, and b/we have editors who are interested in the series. It is, after all, an internationally notable series.DGG (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * More as an attempt to explain the situation than trying to change anyone's opinion, but redirected articles (not redirects) are reverted to their former article-self without any discussion at times, and by the time it is noticed, a new merge proposal or AfD debate has to be started to confirm old consensus. That's why delete-and-redirects often suffer less abuse afterwards than just redirects. And Magioladitis noted above that improper article resurrections are already occuring for characters of this series (I haven't checked myself). – sgeureka t•c 10:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * agree it can be a problem, but it can be solved the same way many article problems here can be, by people watchlisting and paying attention. DGG (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think having literally thousands of redirects on my (anyone's) watchlist is the solution. And what happens when these watchlisting editors depart from wikipedia? (This is getting into a meta-AfD discussion, so I'll shut up now. Maybe I'll join the exciswting discussion on your talkpage.) – sgeureka t•c


 * 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.