Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuppy Glossop


 * 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: Renominate seperately. Cbrown1023 14:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tuppy Glossop

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Violation of WP:FICT. Minor Wodehouse character, not worthy of an article. There's about forty of these, another editor and I are working on cleaning these up Wehwalt 16:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following articles because they concern Wodehouse minor characters (or organizations created by a fictional character), or fictional locales of little interest, and uniformly fail WP:FICT.




 * Keep some of them, delete others - having read many of the Wodehouse books, I would say that Aunts Agatha and Dahlia, Fink-Nottle, Roderick and Tuppy Glossop, Anatole and Roderick Spode count as major (recurring) characters. (Anatole even appeared in Schott's Miscellanies...) From WP:FICT: "Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." (my bold text). Rather than repeat the same info about every character in each book in which they appear, better to have a separate article on each character. On the other hand, I agree that all the minor characters' articles can go, as can the country houses. Walton monarchist89 17:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep some per Walton monarchist89. bogdan 17:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Fine, though I think you are overly generous in bestowing the title of major character, which of course WP guidelines do not define. But there are more of these things than I thought.  There may be over a hundred.  I mean, Wooster's prep school (fictional) has its own article!  This is going to take a while.  I intend to post in groups of 10-20 and to exercise common sense based on the comments and decisions made.--Wehwalt 18:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge most to minor characters in PG Wodehouse and redirect. I suggested this ages ago and was rebuffed, it remains, in my view, a good idea.  Even Gussie Fink-Nottle doesn't make much of an impact overall. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Don't delete any. The larger ones stand on their own and are well written. The smaller ones can be merged, but not into a biography of Wodehouse, they would be out of place there. List of P. G. Wodehouse characters is already a large article, perhaps the smallest ones can be there as a last resort. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nominate Separately No question that some of these likely need to go, however there are too many nominated in one clump to develop a valid consensus as to what should stay and what should go. Renominate these separately or in smaller groupings. --The Way 00:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep almost all the characters. What counts as major? That isn't in WP:FICTION. The presence of characters (or locations or themes) that occur in more than one novel are central to the overall structure of PGW's fiction. As is, there are three degrees of significance. The major characters, who have their own articles. (I think all of these are in more than one book;  PGW normally made quite sure his major characters would appear repeatedly.  Then, the "minor" characters. These sometimes appeared in more than one book, but were never central to the continuing themes. These do not have their own articles. They mostly have sections in the 5 related articles
 * P. G. Wodehouse minor characters
 * Minor characters in the Blandings stories
 * Minor characters in the Jeeves stories
 * Minor characters in the Mulliner stories
 * Minor characters in the Ukridge stories
 * so there are no articles on minor characters to delete. Then, the really minor characters, who do not appear  in in these lists, but only in the List of P.G.Wodehouse_characters, with only a few words of information each. Many of these would probably deserve their own sections--only the Blandings series has been excerpted thoroughly.  I admire the restraint of the prior editors on these pages. There are only 61 articles on main characters.   It may be possible to find a few to dispute, but the inclusion of  Madeline Bassett and Bingo Little and the Drones Club in the first batch of AfDs does not bode well for the judgement of the deletors.
 * I would be prepared to concede Daphne Braythwayt, Watkyn Bassett, Daphne Winkworth and Boko_Fittleworth from this group. keep only a redirect to the sections among the minor characters. For those who unfortunately do not know them all, I think it reasonable to make a preliminary judgment on the basis of the length of the article.


 * merge almost all the locations to sections in a suitable article on [[Locations in ...]
 * merge most of the organizations similarly, except the Drones Club. -- and the Black Shorts, but this because of its significance in assessing the controversial attitude of PGB to fascism.
 * What I suggest doing is considering the comments here, and then listing  individually or in related groups.  Imagine deleting the Drones Club. DGG 08:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. Still, it could be redirected to an article say, "Organizations in the Wodehouse stories". Most of these articles are not long.  I  concur, they should be relisted individually or in smaller groups.--Wehwalt 15:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- Atlant 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC) (comment this will never be settled, since a few more PGW fanatics would sway the consensus-- There probably are a few left who haven't joined in WP. The only thing to do here is to compromise on sections of an article, with appropriate redirects. The sections can, of course, be as long and detailed as the ingenuity of those fans who are here can make them.--but putting sections for the characters without even sections but just a name on a list must come first--as well as a more accurate check of some of the golf stories etc.  DGG 00:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Put most into the minor chars page, then move back out into separate articles if enough info emerges. This is how I did the Blandings, Ukridge and Minor Chars. pages - ploughing through all the books/stories, adding any data spotted as I went along (the first two of these are almost done with, just having trouble finding the last few books). It soon becomes obvious which characters rate their own page, when a lot of info is built up about one person. I think these pages work pretty well, carrying lots of useful and interesting info without becoming too unwieldy - I hope some day to add similar for the Mr Mulliner and golf shorts, and may need to merge the school and Psmith stuff out of the main Minor Chars (which covers the misc novels) into their own page. Admittedly, the selection process was a lot simpler with the Blandings books, as a hardcore of characters appear in at least half of the books, in various configurations, and with Ukridge only the man himself got the full treatment. There's also a locations page which is fairly populated already - here - and would probably be the right spot for most of the places; I put some of the Jeeves places in there a while back, with basic info, but never got round to removing the old pages - the Black Shorts may not be a neat fit though... JohnnyZen 09:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge You will note that the policy for minor fictional characters is merge into a list, not delete wholesale. I am especially concerned with the article on Roderick Spode, whose deletion would result in a missing link on the Oswald Mosley article.  --Skeenbr0 05:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge It is inappropriate to throw away this much information, especially given the magnitude of notability of the author. Several of these articles that I've seen separately VfDed don't stand up on their own, but could easily hold their own weight as sections of a larger article. -- Strangelv 16:19, 27 January 2007 (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.