Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Smith (Coronation Street)

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 merge to List of past Coronation Street characters (2000-). MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Smith (Coronation Street)[edit]

Contested redirect to List of past Coronation Street characters. No evidence of notability independent of the series. The article consists entirely of unsourced and unnecessary plot summary. McWomble (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of past Coronation Street characters (2000-) - SJB147 (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why (2000-), given that the article states the character's last appearance was in 1976......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I meant (1970-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SJB147 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 7 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Not notable enough for individual page. --Kickstart70TC 06:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but merge properly and fully The existing lists for t his characters are inadequate even for the most minor character of background fixture--they give the name, but nothing important about the role in the story and relationships with the other characters, and that's 00000 the real encyclopedic information--the years and episodes present & names of he actors are important too, but that sort of content ss just the structure--what they did and said is the substance. Separate articles may not be justified , but a good combination article with a psragraph or two about each, with a picture, a general description, and a summary of the tole and relationsips and,i f relevant the character development, is the proper encyclopedic content. WP coverage of fiction should not be only plot-- but it should be mainly plot as supported by characters. What's important about fiction is the story,not the production details. DGG (talk) 08:01, 11 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.