Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Once Upon a Time characters

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Once Upon a Time characters[edit]

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

A typical, and typically inflated, list of characters with extensive if not exhaustive descriptions and summaries "sourced" to Wikipedia articles on the episodes. While WP:NLIST does not give much in the way of guidance, it seems clear to me that the individual entries in the list aren't notable (which WP:LISTPEOPLE does require), that there is an enormous amount of OR and trivia in here, that the fact that some of the characters have articles (Emma Swan etc.), those articles themselves don't pass muster and should be deleted as well. Whatever can be said reliably and encyclopedia can fit in the main article. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator fails to advance a policy-based argument for deletion--cleanup, perhaps, but AfD is not for cleanup. The show is notable, and multiple characters, such as Emma Swan, are themselves notable. This is not a list of people, but of fictional elements, so the reference to WP:LISTPEOPLE is erroneous and inapplicable. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let the page stay. Where else can we have the information on it's different characters? Rtkat3 (talk) 1:47, March 24 2013 (UTC)
Keep but merge/redirect the individual articles on each character into this article. If this were put into the main article, it would be too large, so this seems like a valid split. --Jayron32 12:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bloated overly-detailed plot descriptions. I don't see any reason why the few worthwhile details (if any) cannot be included in the article on the TV series. Note that (before seeing this AfD), I took all the independent articles on the characters of this show to AFD here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And solve the problems with excessive plot descriptions as RandyKitty says. I don't support putting anything just in the TV series article because if people want to find information on the character, we need a place to do it.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – To me it seems as if the individual entries are notable, though I agree that the descriptions are too long. Merge the individual articles back here and then clean it all up quite a bit. But I don't think that's any reason to delete this particular article. Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is an unmitagated disaster of long-winded, in-story description of characters. There is no demonstration that any are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable shows usually have a character list. The article does seem a bit long and perhaps overly detailed. That can be dealt with by normal editing methods though. Dream Focus 14:56, 29 March 2013 (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.