Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 1632 characters (fictional)


 * 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. Obviously a merging into the parent article could be discussed in the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 10:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

List of 1632 characters (fictional)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Parent article was deleted ages ago. All of the problems described in the multiple issues template are pretty major. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 1632 series is the parent article, as should have been clear from the intro sentence to this list. What was deleted was a complementary list of the real historical figures that appear as characters in this series; this list is of the wholly fictional characters that are an invention of the series. postdlf (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Series is notable and a list of fictional characters is useful in the same manner as similarly-situated series.  At this point a list of the characters would bog down the main article.  Deletion of the non-fictitious characters was a different situation.  Montanabw (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Montanbw's comment. Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect - If the character list would bloat the main article, cut it down until it doesn't bloat it. There is no particular reason there has to be a separate list, which will just get filled with over-detailed plot information. TTN (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2016 (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.