Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost character
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Cirt (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ghost character (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Delete. Bit of a pointless article to be honest. Can't be merged with anything, as the individual play's articles have infomation on these characters anyway. Fails WP:LIST and WP:NOTE. Dalejenkins | 19:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a legitimate concept, though easily misunderstood. There are clearly other sources that use this term with reference to authors other than Shakespeare. [1] Paul B (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazon is not a reliable source. Dalejenkins | 23:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What on earth are you talking about? Amazon is simply the link to the book, which is published by Cambridge University Press. You can use its preview facility to see the contents.Paul B (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A familiar concept in the discussion of old plays: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. It's worth a stub. Deor (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep More than ample sourcing found by Deor, Paul B. Edward321 (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Significant concept in the scholarly literature. Plenty of sources available. AndyJones (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2008 (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.