Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street characters

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does anyone have any idea what's the reason to have this article? They are already
 * 1) List of past Coronation Street characters (2000-)
 * 2) List of past Coronation Street characters (1990-1999)
 * 3) List of past Coronation Street characters (1980-1989)
 * 4) List of past Coronation Street characters (1970-1979)

I think we have to put the characters in the correct article and then delete the article. Ced 12:49, 5 Octobe 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as duplicate and confusing. The only think we could do, as an alternative, is to convert the article to a disamb page. I think we already have to copy the contents of this article to the appropriate place. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nominating editor is a confirmed block evading sockpuppet of User:Dodgechris, who habitually makes nominations like this in order to cause disruption to Coronation Street articles.  Frickative  13:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Ced, just copied my concerns written in the Talk Page of Wikipedia's Project Soap Opera. I still agree with the nomination. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge where appropriate. Although the nom is a proven sockpuppet, it probably wont invalidate the AfD, and I think the cause is genuine enough, even though the nominator isn't. The article is unnecessary. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close on the grounds that the faith of the nominator is in question and there are accusations of sockpuppetry. Allowing an AFD to continue under such circumstances would set a bad precedent. No prejudice against the articles being renominated under different circumstances, but right now things have become too cloudy. Recommend this be closed ASAP and Magioladitis be invited to submit a fresh nomination, since it appears the concern may have originated with that editor. I'm reserving my comments re the actual articles for now. 23skidoo (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: The other articles listed are for full-time characters. Don't give in to the rather childish behaviour of a sock puppet. Smurfmeister (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think once they leave, it matters little as to whether they were full or part-time, unless highly recognised and memorable. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:21, 9 October 2008 (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.