Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not look like a notable list; in fact, it looks more like an image repository more than anything. Suggest moving such characters to category-space instead (e.g. Category:Fictional characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame). :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 06:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / early close - See WP:SALAT. It's a well-presented list of clearly defined scope of conceivable use as a navigation and analysis aid, and is therefore within the allowable topics for lists. It's unsourced, but it's clearly capable of being sourced, and AfD is not for cleanup. I advocate early close as the nominator ~~is clearly not aware of the relevant policies for lists and~~ has presented no policy-based reason for deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review of the nominator's edit history I'm inclined to believe they probably are aware of the policies relating to lists, and that this nomination was made in error rather than ignorance. Still, speedy keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per DustFormsWords. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 21#Category:Fictional characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame...that would clearly indicate consensus for list rather than category status; the nominator should have familiarized himself with that decision before preceding with the nomination. AFD is not the place for this; this is merely another attempt by the nominator to draw ire and be disruptive Purple backpack89 06:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per DFW and PBP89. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list, but I suspect the fair use images probably need to go. Still, easily handled without deletion. Jclemens (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the non-free images per WP:NFLISTS. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a reasonable and well-defined (i.e. non-indiscriminate) list of interest. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, interesting, nicely put together list of definite scope.--Korruski^Talk 14:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW, anyone? Purple backpack89 03:12, 3 December 2010 (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.