Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dad's Army 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 redirect to Dad’s Army. Spartaz Humbug! 16:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

List of Dad's Army characters

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Basically a fanpage. Largely in-universe fictography and plotcruft with mostly primary sources. See WP:DERIVATIVE. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Divided between Keep and Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists,  and England. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the middle layer between the show article, and the individual characters, multiples of which have enough references to appear notable at first blush.  No BEFORE articulated. No ATD articulated, and it's pretty much impossible to AGF that an editor in good standing would be unable to identify a merge target for a "list of X characters" article. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned on similar AfD's, if I redirect this, it wouldn't be 10 minutes before it got reverted and I got a nasty note on my talk page for "not seeking consensus." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And that is wrong because...? It's a wrong thing to do, whether through BOLD action or trying to misuse the AfD processes. Your actions are wrong for the encyclopedia, and sufficiently outside the bounds of policy and common sense that they should be treated as user conduct violations. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * First you get mad at me for not redirecting or merging as per ATD, but then you tell me if I do that, it's a user conduct violation. Nice lose/lose situation you've set me up for there. So tell me, what would be the appropriate course of action here? Just let the cruft build up because it's WP:HARMLESS? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't confuse me calling you out for your user conduct and misunderstanding of Wikipedia for being "mad" or having any other particular emotion. The proper response is to not nominate articles for deletion that do or could meet guidelines. If you don't understand how that applies to this article, that is a WP:CIR failure on your behalf. If you are unwilling to make such improvements yourself, then I suggest you simply tag the article and move on to one where you are willing to do the work of improving the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a good, informative article and is an excellent part of the Dad's Army series of articles. Rillington (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL for a fan wiki. We have higher standards. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep These characters have their own individual Wikipedia page. So a list article listing them all with basic information about them is a valid navigational and information list.   D r e a m Focus  13:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dad%27s_Army, which alraedy contains most of the content and is likewise a fancrufty, unreferenced plot summary. This fails WP:NLIST, WP:GNG and WP:ALLPLOT (with associated essays, WP:FANCRUFT, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Plot-only lists can only be seen as valid if they provide necessary context for a general understanding of the topic and the main article is simply too large to properly house it. Neither seems to be the case here. This article is full of what appears to be superfluous plot details not relevant to the general reader, and the main article already has what appears to be a good overview of characters with and without articles. Without anything to allow the list to pass GNG or LISTN, there is no sufficient reason for this to exist. TTN (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect What few sources are used here can potentially be applied to the main article, but the vast majority is indiscriminate fancruft, as are the individual character articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dad's Army - The main article on the series already has a sufficient character list covering all of the main and major reoccurring characters, including succinct descriptions, actor information, and blue links to the appropriate main article for the characters notable enough to have one. This current list is mostly made up entirely of overly detailed plot information, much of which is either completely unsourced or sourced only to primary sources, and extremely minor characters that should not be covered. Rorshacma (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect per all. Not enough sources for a stand-alone article and fails policies including WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:PLOT, and WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per Jclemens. This comes up every time, but apparently it needs to be repeated every time: WP:FANCRUFT is not, by itself, reason for deletion. I am happy to have the discussion on cleaning out all of Lists of fictional characters by work. AfD is not the place for it. De Guerre (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Where would be the place for it? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably RfC, as this would be a proposed policy. De Guerre (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect. This is not of universal importance by any means even in England.  RobinCarmody (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Universal importance" has never been a requirement for notability, even in England. De Guerre (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2022 (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.