Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remix Main 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 (non-admin closure), as relisting garnered only one more keep and no others. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Remix Main Characters

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

this is a cast of characters on a defunct show. I don't know how notable the show itself was and there are no references. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Lack of references is grounds for improvement, not deletion.  (And the article definitely needs improvement.) The show being 'defunct' is not a grounds for deletion, either, otherwise it would be an acceptable reason to delete Star Trek, I Love Lucy, and every other TV show that has ceased production.  Character articles are legitmate spinoff from main articles to to keep the main articles from growing too long.  Edward321 (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "Lack of references is grounds for improvement" is this policy in this case? Doesn't this open the door to fan-based original research or characters to every show? Can I watch a couple episodes and create a Characters of According to Jim? Drunken Pirate (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  JForget  00:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep trim a little, and give some background. What I think we want is something midway between this over-expansive article and the over-brief treatment in the main one on the series. DGG (talk) 02:58, 5 August 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.