Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of recurring characters in Postman Pat

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 No Consensus to delete. While the characters do not seem to be notable on there own, there is no consensus as to whether it is better to have a stand alone list, a trimmed list in the parent article, or no list at all. All options have some precedent on Wikipedia and no overwhelming argument has been made below favoring one or another. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring characters in Postman Pat

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

Indiscriminate list of minor characters in a kids' TV show with no sources or context. — Joseph Fox 14:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Postman Pat. Do you mean to say that no sources exist, or merely that there aren't any in this list at present? If you mean the latter, then that's not a valid reason for deletion. If you mean the former, that's simply incorrect, because at a minimum, the show itself can source whether or not these are characters, what their names are, and a basic description. I also fail to see how the list is indiscriminate, given that these are 1) characters 2) in the Postman Pat TV show 3) that have appeared in more than one episode (i.e., recurring). Now whether or not a standalone list should be maintained for them is a separate question, but if not then this would just need to be merged back to the main Postman Pat article, which is an editorial decision based on the size of the content and the degree to which descriptions of these characters further a reader's understanding. So I see no reason why this should have been listed at AFD. postdlf (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as failing WP:GNG due to complete lack of references. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess. It doesn't make sense to merge to Postman Pat, as that article is already long, and it makes sense to break out content out into sub article. So it's down to delete or keep. It's not very notable content. But Postman Pat is big, it's shown all over the world. So meh, I suppose it's OK. Article needs to be sourced, though. Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping would require us to find sources from somewhere. Do you have suggestions? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and the list-topic of this one does not meet the general notability guideline. This is an indiscriminate collection of information and, therefore, it is unsuitable as a list-topic per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. I do not believe that a merge is justified since the content is unreferenced. Jfgslo (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not see how this list is indiscriminate as it concerns only recurring characters and even then only recurring characters who appear in Postman Pat. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can we tell that, since there are no sources listed? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use Google...--173.241.225.163 (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFICT#Lists of fictional elements. A list of Harry Potter characters is deserving, this is not. See also, to the above IP: WP:GOOGLE. Hurricanefan25 | talk 23:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find sources that establish the notability of each recurring character and the keepers didn't provide sources as well. This would have been different with Santa Claus' reindeers or the characters in The Lord of the Rings. And yet, not all of Santa's reindeers or all TLOTR characters are notable. PolicarpioM (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to sources that demonstrate notability of these characters. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2011 (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.