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.
Data dumps of blue- and redlinked actor names where IMDb might do a better job, and
WP:NOT#DIR or
WP:LISTN might apply. (The category equivalent is
WP:PERFCAT.) All(!) of these lists either have a separate "List of characters" for their respective show, or a sizeable "Cast and characters" section in their show's main article. This is a test case how to deal with comparable lists in
Category:Lists of actors by television series. –
sgeurekat•
c11:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep You can't delete it because you think something else would be better. The lists would be better if they had columns for listing which episode/s the actors were on and their character name. Perfectly valid lists though, too long to fit in the main article. Plenty of blue links to justify them being valid list. If you could find all the names at character list such as
List of Bad Girls characters without anyone left out, then you could just redirect there.
DreamFocus16:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:DEL-REASON states
WP:CONTENTFORKs (creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject) as a common reason for deletion. Seeing that
MOS:TVCAST doesn't differentiate much between Cast and Character listings, I'd say it's pretty clear we're dealing with content forks here. –
sgeurekat•
c18:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect all to each's respective parent article. None of the list articles follow the
MOS:TVCAST format and there is no criteria in each list denoting the importance of each cast member in the shows. The lists may have potential (thus the history should be preserved) but are of no real value to readers as they are now.
Ajf773 (
talk)
19:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Data dumps of blue- and redlinked actor names where IMDb might do a better job, and
WP:NOT#DIR or
WP:LISTN might apply. (The category equivalent is
WP:PERFCAT.) All(!) of these lists either have a separate "List of characters" for their respective show, or a sizeable "Cast and characters" section in their show's main article. This is a test case how to deal with comparable lists in
Category:Lists of actors by television series. –
sgeurekat•
c11:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep You can't delete it because you think something else would be better. The lists would be better if they had columns for listing which episode/s the actors were on and their character name. Perfectly valid lists though, too long to fit in the main article. Plenty of blue links to justify them being valid list. If you could find all the names at character list such as
List of Bad Girls characters without anyone left out, then you could just redirect there.
DreamFocus16:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:DEL-REASON states
WP:CONTENTFORKs (creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject) as a common reason for deletion. Seeing that
MOS:TVCAST doesn't differentiate much between Cast and Character listings, I'd say it's pretty clear we're dealing with content forks here. –
sgeurekat•
c18:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect all to each's respective parent article. None of the list articles follow the
MOS:TVCAST format and there is no criteria in each list denoting the importance of each cast member in the shows. The lists may have potential (thus the history should be preserved) but are of no real value to readers as they are now.
Ajf773 (
talk)
19:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)reply
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.