Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Thomas Theisman - 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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 07:41, 3 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 07:41, 3 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.