Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional butlers

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. Sandstein 12:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional butlers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am completing an incomplete afd nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Butlers and other servants in fiction are reasonable notable. FrozenPurpleCube 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily defined profession and archetype. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

• The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. And now that I've got to the bottom of this list, may I just add how downright angry I am that some <personal attack removed> could possibly look at the VAST amount of mostly good quality work done by literally hundreds of wikipedians in the articles covered by this mass nomination, then could demonstrate so much contempt for them, and for the project, that he or she would even think of attempting to destroy it all. AndyJones 13:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to category, that's what categories are for. A conversion is no loss of information. >Radiant< 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have rebutted this 96% inaccurate observation here. AndyJones 12:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list for the genre. I suggest that we salt this and the others, for more or less the reasons as given by AndyJones. DGG 03:59, 9 January 2007 (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.