Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Coronation Street characters (1991)


 * 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. No consensus but perhaps a merge by decade is a good idea. v/r - TP 17:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Coronation Street characters (1991)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is a list of one with no prose whatsoever Ryan Vesey  Review me!  13:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see why its done this way. List of Coronation Street characters (1960), and all the others, apparently just list the new characters that just appeared that year.  Shouldn't they give a simple list of which ones are still on the show year by year, with those items then linking to the article for the year they first appeared in which will have all the detailed information about them?  There is one new character in the year 1991, who was notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, otherwise that information would be in this article.  Since there was a new notable character added this year, no reason not to list them here, and link to where to find information about them.  52 years listed, two of them deleted already, but the rest still there.  Seems odd to have any red links at all if you have even one notable listing.   D r e a m Focus  18:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your argument. If anything the page could get redirected to the character, but it is dumb to have a crap page to avoid a redlink.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  20:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant    talk    00:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Keep The article is obviously part of a set and so should not be considered in isolation. Deciding whether the set should be merged or otherwise restructured is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. I suggest that they be grouped by decade instead of year. Warden (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominated offers no policy-based rational whatsovever for deletion ("a list with no prose"). So fix it then!  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, maybe even speedy delete as A3 just like the CS 1975 and CS 1976 articles. Seeing that many of the other set articles are also rather empty, those should be merged to decade sets instead of yearly sets. – sgeureka t•c 06:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 *  Possible Definite speedy per A3 and the template Sp33dyphil found. Otherwise delete for the same reason. Other articles should also be merged, probably by decade and then turned into redirects to the specific section.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  14:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Appended 17:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - "This article is a list ..." no, this List is a list in a series. It unfortunately only has one entry, c'est la vie. WP:IAR would make sense in this case. To those that say paraphrased "They all should have this or that done to make them look better", be WP:BOLD & edit them, but deletion of this List would loose encyclopedic information and set bad precedent. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What about a merge?  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  16:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What sort of merge? You'd have every year with its own article, except two years were merged as one?  The shortness of the article isn't relevant.   D r e a m Focus  18:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is if there's no content other then links...  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  18:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually like the idea of a merger into articles about different decades. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  19:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think that any large scale merge decision would also have to have the concensus & co-operation of the relevent WikiProject, being that there are more active editors involved with that Project than their are involved in this AfD. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 16:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per A3 (no content). The template Coronation Street, in any case, already renders this list unnecessary. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 09:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * At present the contents appears just to be the template, but the characters could and should be listed also. Expansion, not deletion is what is needed. The template mentioned does not go year by year, and so long and complex a series needs such a listing. Decade by decade is too long and too complex; the series is divided into seasons, not decades.  Anyway,  if deleted in the current state, as soon as such a list were added, it could be recreated without violating G4.   DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:GNG. Unreferenced and highly unlikely to be referenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously referenceable, from imdb and similar sources, from the various guides to video series, and, most important, from the preferred source for plot and character related information, from the work itself, which is obviously almost always more accurate than any secondary source.   DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with DGG that it is probably source-able, but I'd say that as a procedural matter, it should be deleted for now. Better to have a redlink then an empty bluelink.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  16:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nominator doesn't give deletion rationale, many articles are list only. Yes, article is very poor but must be considered in context with rest of series. Agree with Warden: probably better to restructure the series. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:30, 15 September 2011 (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.