Named = Notable?
So the guidelines were using is that if a character has a name, then they're automatically considered notable? If so, then maybe we need to do some more consideration of the guidelines. Because those characters announced on the radio broadcasts on Potterwatch seem exactly like the sort of articles the policy was designed to combat. Copy the same exact information, substitute name and gender pronouns and an etymology section here and there and you're looking at otherwise exactly the same article for some thirty or forty people. All of that information could easily be combined into a hub article titled something like "List of missing individuals announced on Potterwatch" and probably should. ProfessorTofty (talk) 16:15, July 24, 2012 (UTC)
- "An unidentified character can have a separate article if there is unique, specific information available that can be used to distinguish them from other characters in the title of their article." As the guidelines are currently worded, every specifically named character is article-worthy. Personally, these Potterwatch (I'm sure you meant Potterwatch) announcement characters do not bother me as much as the "Unidentified such-and-such who appeared for a fleeting moment in the background of some scene". I say we should keep these articles, as merging them all would set a precedent that would result in a resurgence of "List" articles that are not at all desirable (except for those unidentified characters) instead of separate articles: i.e. "List of (named) background Hogwarts students in the games", "List of minor-importance Ministry of Magic offices", "List of real-life locations", etc., etc. -- 16:39, July 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, you're right, I did mean Potterwatch. Fixed. And I suppose you have a point, though it still seems like the individual pages add little of value when it's just the same basic thing over and over again. But it's probably better to leave it as it is, due to the precedent. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:10, July 24, 2012 (UTC)