Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Key & Peele 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   delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Key & Peele characters

 * – ( View AfD View log )

"There aren't any main characters on the series" pretty much sums up my objection. Listing every unnamed character that ever appears in a sketch on sketch show just isn't a reasonable basis for an article. &mdash;Kww(talk) 13:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom — complete no-brainer here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete One article telling readers about the show should be enough. BigJim707 (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I just can't see how an article about the characters of a series without any main characters is in any way worthy of an article. An exhaustive list is not necessary, and the concept is already mentioned at the parent article, Key & Peele. Chris the Paleontologist  (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Yet another contribution of listcruft provided this week by TBrandley, who is getting to be an AfD regular with their run of unneeded list of and programming block articles (to the point where he created a WikiProject about programming block articles that should definitely be merged to WP Televison). Very poorly written article about a show which has no regular characters outside of their Obama impression.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBrandley (talk • contribs) (comment moved down by  Nate  • ( chatter ) to differentiate rationale)
 * Comment I don't think that a verifiable statement about editing history is a personal attack.  For example, the fact that the editor has created a lot of similar articles that were quickly deleted by the community is a fact.  See WP:NPA.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Response No personal attack was leveled and it is highly inappropriate to use that template within an AfD. I simply stated you do have plenty of AfD's up and stated the quality standard has not been met with this article. Please redact the template.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 11:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * merge selectively to Key & Peele per WP:ATD and WP:NNC. A sketch show can indeed have notable characters, but these aren't them. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What information would you merge that isn't already in List of Key & Peele episodes?&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete unmaintainble, unsourceable trivia. RadioFan (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and block editor per WP:DISRUPT. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is nothing of any substance. I don't even suggest merging into the current article; outside of Obama/The Anger Translator, there are no notable recurring characters anyway.--BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 03:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Please block editor per WP:IDHT and outrageous accusation of personal attacking. See also Requests_for_comment/TBrandley.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2012 (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.