Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Tin Man


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in Tin Man

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable list of secondary characters from a mini series, with almost all being nothing but minor characters. Nothing but a complete repeat of the series plot, with WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues all over the place. Role of semi-major characters, such as Raw, already properly covered in the mini-series plot. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. Additionally, consensus has shown that film articles should generally not have character lists except for serial works, which this is not. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Gotta agree with the nom on this one. 100% plot summary, and just a bunch of character-specific rehashes of the summary that's already present in the main article, which already needs trimming. I've been involved with the Tin Man-related articles for going on a year, and haven't seen any reliable third-party sources that would attest to notability of any of these characters. Not surprising for a miniseries that's only 3 episodes long. Hence nothing worth saving or merging, and the title (as a "list of..." title) is an unlikely search term, so delete. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nominator's solid argument. I do not see this list of secondary characters ever possessing primarily real-world context with plot detail only complementing as necessary. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 05:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Relevant and interesting article on characters from a successful miniseries. We have a list of characters from Titanic which despite being the second most successful film ever made was actually just a one off film. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC) ← Note: This user has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The opinion that the article is "relevant and interesting" does not hold up against the policies and guidelines quoted by the nominator. In addition, we don't point to other parts of Wikipedia to support this part of Wikipedia, saying "Other stuff exists," for they may disregard policies and guidelines as well.  An article must comply with them, and any similarly existing articles must comply as well. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 13:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's hit them one at a time. WP:PLOT is not thought by anyone who discusses it regularly (see the talk page of WP:NOT) to be a reason to delete.  WP:WAF actually encourages spinout articles when appropriate.  WP:NOR/WP:OR are reasons to clean up, not to delete.  We are left with WP:N and the issue of spinout articles.  That is largely unsettled still, but a single list of characters is very rarely contested. After the other articles, nominated at the same time, tell us to merge to this article, what do we do?Hobit (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The miniseries article is very sparse, so there is zero basis to argue about spinning out sub-articles. This list is an indiscriminate collection of information.  All these secondary characters from a miniseries do not deserve this level of inane detail. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 05:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree on the sparse so the spinout may not be justified. But that would be a merge back, not a delete. However inane and deserves in this context seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Hobit (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Trim and merge with Tin_Man_(TV_miniseries), surely.-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  14:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Got curious and checked the article history since I had vague memories of it having a section long ago. And it did. It was gutted without remark or reason on June 22, 2008. by a user now known to be a sockpuppet. Curious as to why no one undid his edit? :-( -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I imagine it was because there was no reason for the lengthy character details in the article on account of the other articles existences. I should imagine it was because they made the article unnecessarily long. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC) ← Note: This user has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, it was a "good thing" but notice his gutting also removed several sources from the article, which it sorely needed (and oh, still does). Nor was the article "unnecessarily long" it was too plotty (and still is), so the issue wasn't actually addressed at all, just split across a bunch of inappropriate articles. The main article still sucks by all standards, and was reduced to nothing but a table of ratings, a grossly long plot, and a brief list of the cast. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it appeared at first glance to be well intentioned but upon further inspection it would seem that it wasn't. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC) ← Note: This user has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any reason why this all couldn't be incorporated into the main article and the Casting section re-fleshed-out in this manner or something similar. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be, but notice that most of those characters are blue links. The characters themselves have been put up for deletion at that same time which I think was a poor choice.  I've contacted Colectonian and suggested this one be delayed.  She declined.  Hobit (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Strong keep for now List of characters are often good organizationally AND given that the same editor nominated (all?) the main characters, this is an obvious merge target for them. Odds are good that we will end up with mergers from those. After that, feel free to nominate this. But until then you're creating a mess where a bunch of AfDs will likely result in a merger to an article that's been deleted. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —--  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, since the list is primarily nothing but minor characters, the main characters can be merged just as easily to the main article (also an obvious merge target, and a more appropriate one). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be, but I think doing one at a time is the wiser and cleaner course. Hobit (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as with the DG character, the items on this list can be verified in numerous reviews and previews, which also provided information for reception and development sections. A case can be made for improvement here, but not for deletion.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the well-formulated nomination. Eusebeus (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, especially when the nomination has been refuted. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or possibly merge to Tin Man (TV miniseries). This miniseries was substantially reviewed by nearly every major newspaper and many national magazines, so there is no doubt plenty of independent reliable source material to say something independently verifiable about all the characters listed here. Whether it should be said in a separate article or in the main article is a question to be determined on the article's talk pages, not at AfD. DHowell (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. List of character sis completely appropriate spin-offs of main articles and this seems to be within an acceptable level not making any outrageous claims or overly gushy. It needs cleaning up and more real-world relevance but those aren't deletion concerns. Per AfD - if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. -- Banj e  b oi   09:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hobit. If there was enough interest to create a dozen pages we should handle this via merges.18:45, 26 January 2009 (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.