Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Thomas & Friends non-rail vehicles

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 Thomas & Friends characters. MBisanz ^talk 15:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thomas & Friends non-rail vehicles

[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)

One of several weirdly split lists of minor characters from the series. I can find no evidence that the topic of non-rail vehicles in Thomas & Friends has ever been discussed as set in reliable sources, so it seems it fails WP:LISTN. Very little is referenced so there is almost nothing to merge and a redirect (to where?) is pointless due to the title being unlikely as a search term. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has not be discussed as a set in reliable sources, it fails WP:LISTN. // Timothy :: talk 01:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and I agree that this is not a plausible search term so it should be deleted outright; nothing worth merging or keeping Spiderone 07:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, deleteper mom, fails LISTN. Nothing really to merge, not a plausible search term. A list of major characters would be notable, but this absurd specificity is not. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Didn't we just merge content from Terence the Tractor into this one? Presumably the content that was merged from there is still worth saving, or it wouldn't have been worth saving the first time. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 16:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
YorkshireLad, while it is appreciated you merged this, I personally don't see much encyclopedic value in this content. I am however not opposed to merging that somewhere else, probably one final list of characters from this franchise. Feel free to suggest the target this could be merged to. I guess we could combine everything at List of Thomas & Friends characters into one list? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, Sorry if my post sounded defensive, it wasn't meant to be. :-) I was just a bit confused. But yeah, I think what's going on here is that the list at List of Thomas & Friends characters has had stuff split out, and by deleting this list, that list effectively becomes incomplete. But this list would seem to fail WP:LISTN. So I'd suggest merging everything into one list, and I'd be happy to carry out the merge . It certainly doesn't make sense to have separate lists of Thomas & Friends and The Railway Series characters, any more than it would make sense to maintain separate lists of Harry Potter characters for the books and the films (which AFAIK we don't). YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am totally fine with all the lists being merged, and if you need time, we can simply move them to your userpace while you work on combining them, instead of deletion. Redirecting (soft deletion preserving history) would be best, since redirects are cheap and it is good to preserve history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at least the names of the characters to List of Thomas & Friends characters, per my comment above. Having separate lists by class is silly, and certainly fails WP:LISTN. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yorkshire's reasoning here. Light merge to YL's proposed target the names and maybe a few short lines of prose if any of it is verifiable. This fails LISTN, but there's no reason to lose all of the content, when a main character list would surely be notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, Actually, does it make more sense to merge to List of characters in The Railway Series? If there's going to be one list for both the books and the TV show, it should probably go under the original title, with a redirect from the other. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 14:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
YorkshireLad - Yeah, I see no need to have separate lists for the books and the TV show, since a lot of the characters are the same. I think all of these character lists should be merged together, maybe trimmed some. Not all need to be mentioned in the final product. For instance, most of the entries at List of Thomas & Friends film characters don't look significant whatsoever. The Railway Series article is probably the best final target. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, Indeed. For instance, I feel like Prince Charles probably isn't really a Thomas & Friends character, any more than he's a Coronation Street character (and, indeed, he's not on the corresponding list). YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 14:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could also consider renaming the final list a List of Thomas & Friends and The Railway Series characters. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the names into the parent article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2020 (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.