Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Emergency! characters

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Emergency! characters

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

Article about fictional characters that fails multiple Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion including verifiability, reliable sources. I am unclear if it passes WP:Notability because it contains not one single point of reference from a secondary independent source. It is an article with 100% original research. While the article has had maintainence tags only since January of this year to address these issues, these tags seem to be ignored as it continues to only attract editor(s) who want to add only original thought which Wikipedia is not per WP:Not and WP:Forum. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC) ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to have been an extremely popular television show back in its day. This book alone could probably be used to reference the entire characters list and the details in it. Silver seren^C 00:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CSC #2 and WP:TOOLONG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep generally, if a fictional work is unquestionably notable, then a character list is a good idea if the list is long enough that it affects readability of the main article. Verifiability doesn't seem to be a problem here, as shown by Silver seren's book source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note from nominator: I see your points and do agree these fictional characters are notable. I will try to add verifiable information from the book source and hopefully others. Thank you for your insights. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2014 (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.