Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Brittas Empire 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. This article needs a cleanup, deletion really isn't the case here. Tone 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Brittas Empire characters[edit]

Fails WP:FICT. A long article about characters in a sitcom discussed entitely within an in-universe perspective, without any real-world context or independent references. The only references are very vague ones to the primary sources. ~~A radically shortened version of this can be merged into the The Brittas Empire, and this deleted.~~ The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Combination articles like this are the way to go for this sort of subject. It should not be radically shortened, in fact it should probably be lengthened, for every named character with a speaking role should probably be included. As for the sections on the individual characters, perhaps some of them should be expanded into individual articles. It was a major prize-winning show in its time. It's hard finding online sources for 3rd party discussion of 90s television, but print sources need to be examined and the material added. This is an instance where the motivation of a deletion nomination is explicitly stated to be a merge, not a deletion, and the motive for the merge to be , in fact, not for the proper arrangement of material, but for the elimination of content. DGG (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a corresponding article of this type that immediately sprang to mind was List of House characters, but I am sure there are many other examples. This series was long-running and merits such a break-out section. I am less convinced that the various images in the current article necessarily satisfy fair-use, but that's a completely separate issue. (Actually, checking the article's history, this is already a merge of several separate "character" articles, complete with their original "character" Infoboxes - to be clear, I don't think it should be "merged" any further)--DaveG12345 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Corresponding articles are only necessary when the parent's article is of a substantial length. House (TV series) is a developed article that justifies spin-offs, though the List of House characters does not share the credentials of its parent. This parent's article is a complete mess. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree re the current status of those three articles. Looks to me like improvement is needed in the parent article more urgently than in this child. But I'm just not convinced a simple merge of child-with-parent will provide a satisfactory solution in that respect. --DaveG12345 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite to an out of universe perspective and maybe find some more citations. This isn't a very good article as-is, but it seems notable enough.--Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a proposal to merge not delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a proposal to delete this article, not a merge/redirect. Any content that could be "merged" should be substantially rewritten to the extent that it's probably can't be considered a merge. I'm striking my merge sentence in the nom as it's getting in the way of people seeing what the problem is. Ultimately, though, this content fails WP:FICT; where are the episode article deletionists? -- copyvio? in-universe perspective? real-world info? I would agree with 'Lost tiree' if I beleived that a suitable rewrite is forthcoming. My position is: delete, with no prejudice for recreation if rewritten properly. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though needs cleanup, sourcing, and there still may be consideration to move to the parent article if the parent article can't be expanded - presuming that this list, however, is complete. The list does have several cleanup issues (too many images per WP:NFC, lots of {{cn}}'s , etc.) but such lists of characters are generally acceptable. (and FWIW, the "current" version of FICT is still a proposed guideline, nor would cover lists of characters, so best to use current community standards which is to retain lists of characters) --MASEM 13:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it does need re-writing, but doesn't need deleting. I wrote the content a while back now as 'Edito*Magica', and what i thought was written in an 'in-universe' way at the time probably wasn't entirely, but if you read through the whole of the page, you'll find evidence of some of the content being written 'in-universe'. It expands on the information given on the main page, and supplies signifcant character detail, therefore should be kept. I think it is too long to be merged into the main page. All images are screenshots I took myself, to settle any concerns about copyright. Whirl*editing (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is indeed to long. That is why it should be deleted, rather than merged into the main page. BTW, the copyright issue about images still exists, regardless if you captured them or took them from a website. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:46, 25 January 2009 (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.