Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Commander in Chief 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Commander in Chief characters

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

Despite the title of the page implying it might be similar in form to other series' character lists, this instead is a massive list which is solely comprised of names with no descriptive information whatsoever aside from grouping by type. The notable characters (i.e., those not merely appearing for half a second or not at all) are adequately covered in the main article's character section. WCityMike 05:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the series is notable, this list can be trimmed and sourced. No reason for deletion given--AfD is not for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if kept, Rename to List of Commander in Chief (TV series) characters, since a commander in chief can be described as a character, and this could be confused with a list of commanders in chief who are characters. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A rename to List of Commander in Chief (TV series) characters would be inappropriate. Disambiguators are only added to article titles to distinguish them from other articles, not from other potential articles. There is no list of commander-in-chiefs, and even if there was, there would be no need to rename this article; a link to the other article would simply be added to this one in a hatnote. Neelix (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would match the title of the main article, Commander in Chief (TV series), which is something that is done, regardless of the existence of other articles. And we do rename things that are infinitely confusing. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Orange production in Brazil should not be renamed Orange (fruit) production in Brazil so that it matches the main article Orange (fruit). There is no need for this kind of conformity; it unnecessarily complicates the title. Neelix (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title is insufficiently precise to be sufficiently useful as a title. Since the actual title of the program is not "List of Commander in Chief characters" this is a descriptive and not a prescriptive title, so it needs a better name. Since "Commander in Chief" is a rank, and many characters have had that rank, this could easily be interpreted as a list of characters that have a military rank called "Commander in Chief". If you don't like parentheses, how about List of characters from the Commander in Chief television series , which is descriptive and uses an English language phrase, instead. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "List of x characters" is the established title format for lists of fictional characters; List of characters from the Commander in Chief television series is not an appropriate title because there is no semantic difference justifying a variation in title format. If there was ambiguity with another article, the version with brackets (List of Commander in Chief (TV series) characters) would be correct, but there is no ambiguity with another article. Even if there was a list of commanders-in-chief, the word "characters" and the fact that the word "Chief" is capitalized avoid the ambiguity. The current title is fully acceptable. Neelix (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got a script error when I was relisting this debate. It seems to all have gone through properly, but if something is screwed up, apologies. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs clean-up, but that is not a reason for AfD. The name did confuse me at first, but that is an issue for the talk page, not AfD. Movementarian (Talk) 09:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although I think that article talk pages are a huge waste of time— if you want to hear yourself talk, go to a talk page, if you want to talk and be listened to, come here— the article itself is a legitimate spinoff of the article about the television show, since political dramas (like The West Wing and 24) often have a large cast of characters. It has plenty of discriminating information in showing who does what (White House aide, U.S. Senator, etc.), and it's better than most of these. For a real piece of crap, see List of Married... with Children cast members, which could take a few lessons from this one. Mandsford 13:39, 10 June 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.