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. The one "keep" opinion is notably weak, consisting only of "but the character is in IMDB and appeared in...". The one "merge" opinion makes no argument and suggests no target, and the one "wrong forum" opinion makes no sense, given that this is indeed a deletion request, not a content dispute. On the other hand, the "delete" side's assertion that there are insufficient sources for these characters have not been rebutted by citing relevant sources.  Sandstein  20:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Schoenfeld[edit]

Wilfred Schoenfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Character from one episode, no evidence of any notability Fram (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for deletion are the following, all created by the same editor about one, two or three-episode characters from the same series, all lacking any further notability.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1.) Richard Marson, "Inside UpDown - The Story of Upstairs, Downstairs", Kaleidoscope Publishing, 2005 2.) http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067782/ 3.) http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067782/quotes 4.) http://www.updown.org.uk/epguide/s1.htm#mc Updown.org.uk 5.) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0738024/?ref_=tt_ep_nx --ColeB34 (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Lawrence Kirbridge isn't an "one, two or three-episode character". Lawrence Kirbridge appears in The Key of the Door, For Love of Love, The New Man (Upstairs, Downstairs), A Pair of Exiles, Married Love (Upstairs, Downstairs), Whom God Hath Joined..., Out of the Everywhere (Upstairs, Downstairs). (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
second reply: Lawrence Kirbridge is in IMDB, see http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067782/
third reply: Lawrence Kirbridge is in IMDB, see http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067782/quotes
Please see:
1.) Richard Marson, "Inside UpDown - The Story of Upstairs, Downstairs", Kaleidoscope Publishing, 2005
2.) http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067782/
3.) http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067782/quotes
4.) http://www.updown.org.uk/epguide/s1.htm#mc Updown.org.uk
5.) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0738024/?ref_=tt_ep_nx

--ColeB34 (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you read what I said?  But rather than answer that, let me repeat what I said, "Notability is not a deleteion argument here."  I've added italics to the word "here", which should explain the confusion. 

    "Wrong forum" is the right close for nominations that show insufficient familiarity with WP:N and WP:Deletion policy including WP:ATD and WP:Editing policy and WP:Redirect, and at best would trap the closing administrator or NAC into adjudicating a content dispute with a non-binding AfD decision.  Better to follow policy and get this to content decision makers, as well as clarify that there is no theoretical case here for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unscintillating, I looked for notability for these, and couldn't find any. Please AGF that when people nominate articles for deletion, they have done their job. This is not a content dispute, this is a notability discussion (coupled with an editor hellbent on keeping these articles only because he can then add screenshots to them). I really don't get what you are trying to claim here or trying to achieve here. Do you actually claim that these characters are notable (evidence please), or that I have not looked for notability before nominating them? In any case, to go back to what you wrote, notability is the deletion argment here. I really have no idea why you would claim otherwise, or what other reason you think I have to start these AfDs. Fram (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the statement, "notability is the deletion argument here", what I wrote was, "Notability is not a deletion argument here."  I've added emphasis to the word "a".  Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a response to relevant content, specifically, I've directly cited 3 policies, a specific policy subsection, and an editing guideline for your attention.  C.f. the WP:INSIGNIFICANCE essay cited in response to another !vote, as it extracts relevant quotes, such as "WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion states, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  Since the premise of this thread (my !vote) is that notability is not a deletion argument for this AfD, questions about my opinion regarding notability seem misplaced.  The point about these pictures keeps coming up, but the pictures are content, consistent with my !vote of "Wrong forum".  From WP:Deletion policy#Content:

Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

Again, a close here would at best trap the closing administrator or NAC into adjudicating a content dispute with a non-binding AfD decision.  Better to follow policy and get this dispute to content decision makers, as well as clarify that there is no theoretical case here for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the others, editors aren't necessarily even bothering to respond, and it is not clear why they are here as the nomination has provided no WP:BEFORE D1 results and there are no Find sources templates.  Deletion policy suggests that the alternate to a discussion on the talk page of the article is an RfC.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Aoba47 reply: Lawrence Kirbridge isn't an "one, two or three-episode character". Lawrence Kirbridge appears in The Key of the Door, For Love of Love, The New Man (Upstairs, Downstairs), A Pair of Exiles, Married Love (Upstairs, Downstairs), Whom God Hath Joined..., Out of the Everywhere (Upstairs, Downstairs). (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)Thank you --ColeB34 (talk)

@ColeB34: Rather tha copying-and-pasting the same reason over and over again, I would recommend devoting your attention to finding third-party, reliable sources to prove that these characters have notability outside of the show. I believe that the reason that these articles are nominated for deletion is that there is the lack of evidence that these characters have enough notability outside of the show to warrant an article. My delete vote stands, and I am not convinced by your argument. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2016 (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.
More