Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Thomas Theisman: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:36, 16 April 2009 editJack Merridew (talk | contribs)34,837 edits explicit del statement ;)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:41, 3 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(14 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''No Consensus''', defaults to '''Keep'''. ] 05:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|F}}


:{{la|Thomas Theisman}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> :{{la|Thomas Theisman}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
Line 6: Line 12:


*'''Delete''' as nom. Cheers, ] 08:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC) *'''Delete''' as nom. Cheers, ] 08:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] 08:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)</small>
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] 08:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)</small>
*'''Keep'''. Major character in a particularly notable series of fictional works, important enough to be the first character mentioned on the book blurbs for at least one of the novels . Regularly discussed in reviews of the books (e.g. ). Discussed by the author in . Plenty of source material to expand beyond an in-universe plot summary. ] (]) 11:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' entirely unsourced and unsourceable fan-type essay. The fictional characters "importance" to this or that novel should be reflected in those novels' plot summaries.] (]) 12:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' How many books or other sources was the character found in? If more than one, and there is enough information to justify an article on its own, then I say it is clearly notable enough to have the right to exist. Listing each book the character was found in, in the reference section, should be done though. ] 17:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
::It's been a while since I read the books, but IIRC he appeared in 4-5 of them, and was probably the second most important character in one of those. ] (]) 14:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', Clearly a major character Major characters in major fiction should get articles. I cannot tell if this string of nominations against characters and character groups in this fiction is a statement that the fiction as a whole in not important enough for detailed coverage (about which I have no real opinion), or whether no fiction at all should get detailed coverage. If the latter, its the attempt of a very small group to wear down the opposition by working on individual fictions not all that many people here care about individually, and where they can often get a majority bit by bit against what they have proven unable to get in principle. This is based on the stated view of the nominator that popular culture is not worth substantial coverage. Considering that such is one of the glories of Misplaced Pages, I find that odd. ''']''' (]) 18:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
:* '''Comment''' see to a similar post of yours on ]. Cheers, ] 05:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as in-universe, unnotable, ]-violating fancruft. ] (]) 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as per JulesH. ] (]) 14:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Selective blurb merge and redirect''' to ]. --] (]) 18:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 07:41, 3 February 2022

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, defaults to Keep. Nakon 05:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Theisman

Thomas Theisman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable, unsourced, in-universe, plot summary; tagged over a year ago for clean-up and no resolution of concerns. Jack Merridew 08:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been a while since I read the books, but IIRC he appeared in 4-5 of them, and was probably the second most important character in one of those. JulesH (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, Clearly a major character Major characters in major fiction should get articles. I cannot tell if this string of nominations against characters and character groups in this fiction is a statement that the fiction as a whole in not important enough for detailed coverage (about which I have no real opinion), or whether no fiction at all should get detailed coverage. If the latter, its the attempt of a very small group to wear down the opposition by working on individual fictions not all that many people here care about individually, and where they can often get a majority bit by bit against what they have proven unable to get in principle. This is based on the stated view of the nominator that popular culture is not worth substantial coverage. Considering that such is one of the glories of Misplaced Pages, I find that odd. DGG (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
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.