Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of All That 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of All That characters[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

non notable list WP:CSC Prisencolin (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisencolin: You've posted a number of the exact same AFDs recently and it seems like you're not reading the discussions, because you've not expanded your rationale in any way beyond the same WP:VAGUEWAVE incomplete sentence. Please discuss the content and your evaluation of it per WP:BEFORE, and explain why there are no alternatives to deletion as policy requires, instead of making participants guess at your reasoning or do that work for you. This is your case to make. postdlf (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this user is making AFD nominations in a POINTY manner due to issues with an article creation of theirs being taken to AFD and another draft being rejected by AFC (which had been previously AFD'd). CSC is not a notability guideline. I recommend a speedy keep on procedural grounds, with no opposition to someone else nominating if they feel WP:LISTN or WP:GNG aren't met. -- ferret (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this appears to be an unsourced list. Wikipedia is built on verrifiability which in turn is built on sourcing. When we have sourceless items they should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That content currently does not include sources does not mean it's not verifiable, because the question is whether sources exist (and here at a minimum there is the series itself as a source for its own content). Your claim that "sourceless items...should be deleted" is false and contrary to policy outside of the very narrow BLP exception; see WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD, and WP:BEFORE. postdlf (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and non notableShrikanthv (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as more of a database than an article, and a questionably verifiable one at that. It's possible you could focus on the notable cast members of a sketch comedy show, and some of their more notable appearances, but that would be a very different article, probably with a different name. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- unsourced fancruft, and there is little evidence of meeting WP:LISTN. Reyk _YO! 09:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and non notableShrikanthv (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2020 (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.