Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Switched at Birth 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 keep. Postdif's "or" was the tie-breaker; I'm closing this as a keep, feel free to discuss a merge on talk page. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 05:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Switched at Birth characters

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Almost ten thousand words of plot summary. Totally unsourced and unencyclopedic content. OSbornarfcontribs. 18:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as completely unsourced to reliable secondary sources (failing our notability guideline as well). —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  20:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete . Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details, nor a collection of summary-only descriptions of works. The level of detail in this article is completely ridiculous, and there's no reason that it can't be sufficiently covered by Switched at Birth (TV series). This insane level of detail should be left to fansites such as these, not encyclopedias. Chris the Paleontologist  (talk • contribs) 23:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize now that I was being a bit brash with this decision, but I still don't see how this can't be covered by Switched at Birth (TV series). I now think that the best option is probably to merge relevant info to that section and create a redirect. Chris the Paleontologist  (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Contra Fourthords, notability for a list of characters in a notable show stems from the show's notability, rather than that of the individual characters. There is waaaay too much plot here, but it's entirely possible to trim, per WP:ATD.  Oh, and sourcing can be done to the primary material in order to meet V. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, saying that this list of characters' notability is inherited from the notability of the parent media is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED). I realize it's an essay, but it's widely cited and accurately sums up my similar opinion.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  04:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That essay doesn't apply very well conceptually to analyzing elements of notable topics, only to peripherally related discrete topics (note that all of the examples given at WP:NOTINHERITED are very different in nature from this list). Obviously the characters of a TV series are an integral part of that series, and so describing them at least to some extent is necessary to cover that series. Whether or not such a list should be maintained within the main article or here in a separate one is completely an issue of size, as many AFDs have concluded. postdlf (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge and redirect to Switched at Birth (TV series), as it really isn't debatable whether the series' characters should be described. While I agree that this list goes to excessive detail, that's an editing concern, not a deletion concern. So I encourage contributors to trim it down, to discuss where such trimming meets disagreement, and then to consider whether, once stable and trimmed, it can fit back into Switched at Birth (TV series). It may be that very little is merged in the end, but that still needs to be the result of a normal editing process scalpel utilized by those familiar with the subject and sources about it, not an AFD sledgehammer. Note also that where episodes are identified, the content is not unsourced. postdlf (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep* I haven't had a in-depth look at the policies where these are concerned just yet, but since there are thousands of character lists for television shows out there, from Weeds to Monk, there's probably a policy backing them. The initial reasons for deletion are not good ones, as they pertain to editing issues rather than anything warranting actual deletion. Sources can be found, and the article can be trimmed. →  Bre  nd an  04:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is encyclopedic. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup/trimming. —Lowellian (reply) 04:24, 5 February 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.