Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional police detectives

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. Reasons to keep are neither rooted in policy, nor convincing. Duplicate of the related category. Proto::► 10:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional police detectives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a common and notable character archetype, particularly police procedural fiction. Tarinth 21:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily defined profession and archetype. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

• The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are just "ingeniously" posting the same explanation. An explanation that was discussed and rejected. -- User:Docu

• I posted the same infomation in each of these nominations (which I did not list individually, by the way) so that editors who see them understand why they were nominated. It strikes me as bizarre that you would criticise me for posting the information into each nom when you copied and pasted your text into all of them. And it strikes me as fundamentally dishonest for you to have claimed that there was no explanation given for the nomination. And as I also said and as you either didn't understand or chose to ignore, a number of the opinions expressed at the now-closed mass nom were based in part on the mass nature of the nom. Now those who objected to the mass nom have the chance to weigh in on them individually rather than !voting keep/close on a procedural basis. So, did you have an actual opinion on any of these or is this just a platform for your Wikilawyering? Otto4711 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The explanation you gave was discussed and rejected in the first mass listing. So there isn't really a reason to open all these additional threads (I understand it wasn't you who opened them and it was due to a misunderstanding of person who opened them). -- User:Docu

• It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Just deal with it. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A stock character of a genre, of which the only thing they have in common is carrying a badge: not nationality, era, medium, personality, hair color, height, etc. Sounds pretty indiscriminate to me. There's this thing called "Categories" which would be more useful... --Calton | Talk 15:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A category can't be annotated, so one wont be able to discerne why a particular detective is included. -- User:Docu
• Delete per Calton. >Radiant< 15:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Helps keep the list on the detective article from getting out of control. Kafziel ^Talk 18:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Angus McLellan. I thought Calton was just speaking hypothetically, but Angus points out that the appropriate category already exists. Kafziel ^Talk 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Calton. This is what Category:Fictional police detectives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is for. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see. I'm convinced. Kafziel ^Talk 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you can't annotate or sort Category:Fictional police detectives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Amazing how often categories and lists are confused! -- User:Docu
• Keep as per above two comments. -- User:Docu
• keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list for the genre.DGG 03:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition. --David Edgar 17:28, 10 January 2007 (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.