Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connie James


 * 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   merge to List of Spooks characters. Keeper |  76  14:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Connie James

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources, only reference is the BBC's website, basically it looks like something that could go for A7 if this was a real person. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 13:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Any significant character in notable fiction should get a one or two paragraph description. Any non-trivial character in a notable work should at least have a single line description in a list, and a redirect to it. (It doesn't matter how many characters there are--the more complicated the story, the more need to explain it fully and properly). We're here to provide encyclopedic information--and if the main work is worth covering in the first place, people are likely to want some degree of detail. Why else would you use an encyclopedia in the first place, if you didn't want detailed coverage? And, there is no valid reason why there should not at least be a redirect, so deletion is inappropriate. Anything anyone might rationally want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in Wikipedia.  DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasonably notable fictional character. this Google News Archive search (adding the series name to the character name) filters out enough of the reams of false positives to show that the character has as much coverage as other notable fictional characters. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge (and edit) to List of Spooks characters. This article is pure 100% plot. All the media coverage of her from the above link is in plot summaries or brief mentions, and you need more than that, as WP:PLOT says. There are a lot of similar articles about Spooks characters with little or no sourcing. As I understand notability rules, characters should only be included if there is substantial WP:RS discussion of the character beyond plot: this would include character analysis ("was Hamlet mad?"); the creation and development of the character (outside the fictional universe); casting; how actors played the character; critical judgments about the character; cultural impact. If someone wants to add some encyclopedic content to the article, then I may support keeping it, but currently the article fails to meet Wikipedia policies. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge I am not going to defend keeping relatively minor character articles like these, and I really hope people will similarly not try to delete the material.
 * Merge to th combination article about the characters in the work--the best compromise solution. Butthere should be preservation of a reasonable amount of content.
 * 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.