Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovers (stock 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 Innamorati. History is available if anyone believes there is content worth merging. RL0919 (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Lovers (stock characters)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the sources, this doesn't seem like a notable enough concept for a standalone article. I wouldn't be against a redirect or merge into stock character, but I tried that and it got reverted.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 01:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect with Innamorati, which this seems to be a WP:DUPLICATE of.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge per Zxcvbnm. That article does not engage in statements that make this sound like it applies more broadly than it does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge per Zxcvbnm. Good find, I couldn't find anything that uses this term anyway, and the books linked are not GooglePage linked so trying to quickly investigate this is a pain... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Zxcvbnm. There is nothing meaningful to merge: a garbled piece of WP:SYNTH.  Staszek Lem (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not that I disagree, but...you're the one who reverted the merge, so had you left it, this AfD could have been avoided.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 04:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted because it was a meaningless target. And the subject does make sense. Now the target is good and it actually covers some facts from this one in systematic manner. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Zxcvbnm. I am uncertain if there is much that can be merged, but I would not be opposed to that option if it is the consensus. Aoba47 (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2019 (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.