Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Potts

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 merge to List of Emmerdale characters (2007). Went ahead and WP:BOLDLY merged to suggested/obvious target since redirection (the overall consensus) is impossible without it. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Potts

[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)

Article only cites six sources, of which, 4 are from the same website, and one is primary. Essentially, fails WP:GNG. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consistency. Either we keep all Category:Emmerdale characters or delete most of them. He was a major character. Nominating these characters individually is not helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ALLORNOTHING. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It makes absolutely no sense to nominate a single article in a series for deletion. I'm not saying that articles on soap characters are especially valuable, but what is certainly not valuable is nominating them for deletion piecemeal. And where on earth does WP:NOTINHERITED come into it? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Dronebogus (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Completely missing the point by quoting dogma. Sad, but par for the course these days. Never mind. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is that even supposed to mean? Your “arguments” have been consistently bad and based on arguing around the main topic; what “point” is there to miss? Dronebogus (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of characters from that show, the reception section is very weak, a mention in passing. And I concur that the "argument" above by Necrothesp is just NOTINHERITED. It makes perfect sense to discuss each article, one by one, as some may prove to be salvageable. Even this - if someone finds sources (and if so, ping me and I'll reconsider my vote). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of my argument is WP:NOTINHERITED? I'm not saying he's notable because the series he appears in is notable. I'm saying that it makes no sense to nominate an article on one major character for deletion when there are articles on dozens of other major characters who are no more (or less) notable. I favour consistency, as benefiting Wikipedia, and this is not a consistent approach. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect there’s no good reason to keep this unless some evidence of notability is provided. Redirection is a simple solution in most situations like this involving fictional entities that are not individually notable but are still plausible search terms. Necrothesp keeps bludgeoning this fairly obvious case with off-topic nonsense arguments. Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect "All or nothing" arguments make no sense since it can potentially result in a WP:TRAINWRECK. It is very clearly non-notable and should be redirected. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Dronebogus & Zxcvbnm above. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm. This character has no evidence of notability, and the others can be assessed individually. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a consensus to Reidrect this article but no target article has been identified or agreed upon. This discussion will be closed soon after that step is taken here. Please remember when you argue for a Merge or Redirect to always specify the target article you are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When redirected it should be redirected to List of Emmerdale characters (2007)#Douglas Potts. Storylines and sourced info can be salvaged onto that list. – Meena • 10:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Emmerdale characters (2007)#Douglas Potts as suggested by Meena, as the most appropriate target for the Redirect. To address Necrothesp's concerns, perhaps we can use this AFD's obvious consensus as a precedent to just WP:BOLDly redirect all other articles for this series' characters with the same issues to their appropriate character lists without the need for a discussion for each one. Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that "section" of the article is just a link to this article so it would be a circular redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then obviously this has become a merge situation Dronebogus (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a very Light Merge would need to be carried out, in this case, to resolve that. Rorshacma (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2023 (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.