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 delete. Secret ^account 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Young Dracula characters[edit]

Contested prod. None of the characters depicted in this list are notable enough to warrent this list, which borders on fancruft (and, not that this counts for anything, this is coming from a huge fan of Young Dracula). Those that are remotely notable (main characters) are already covered to a sufficient depth in the parent article, Young Dracula, and as such not only is this article a violation of WP:N, it's plain not needed. _Talk Islander 20:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The noteworthy characters are already covered in the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one way or another . It's true that in most cases the main article contents is at least as good as the list, but there are a few cases (I noticed . Professor Cheney where this list catches a character that should have but isn't included. I don't personally think it matters where the material is, bit once is sufficient. Ether merge the missing information into the main list, or vice versa. Either works just fine. It's a matter of judgement whether the material is long enough to be kept separate, and in my opinion doesn't have anything at all to do with notability. DGG (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to pick you up on your example, Professor Cheney appears in one episode (out of 26-odd), and is not at all important to the overall plot of the programme. He is a plot device for this one episode, and nothing more - he's not notable (incidently, I don't quite understand why you feel that notability isn't relevant here). _Talk Islander 09:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. --63.3.1.2 (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Err... DGG gives a reason for merging, not keeping. Also, any particular reason you're hiding behind an IP? _Talk Islander 18:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's supposed to be 63.3.1.1 you're supposed to be using. MuZemike (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Keep per DGG" is technically correct, because merge is a form of keep, according to deletion policy. Maybe its time to change that and admit openly we have 4 altogether different outcomes, plus no consensus. Might be much less confusing. :) DGG (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd probably agree with you on that one :P _Talk Islander 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, as per nomination. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2008 (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.