Talk:List of Spooks characters

Connie James was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 March 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of Spooks characters. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Television: British / Spooks Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Spooks task force.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Untitled

Alexander Siddig was actually in Episode 2 of Series 2.

Current/Former characters

This section violates WP:FICTION. Articles must be written in present continuous tense. None of the "former" characters were dead in the first episode for example. 59.167.45.168 (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing Notability For Characters/Consensus to Redirect

Time to get the ball rolling here to restore a semblance of encyclopedic order. To summarise the existing problem, per our notability guidelines and policies (WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT):

Most individual character articles are written from an in-universe perspective and they fail to establish real-world significance, supported by verifiable and independent third party reliable sources.

It is currently the consensus view that Wikipedia is not a fansite and as a result the bulk of the information we provide needs to be centred on the real-world impact of individual fictional characters. This clearly is currently not the case, so remedial measures should be introduced.
Having looked for material about these characters to satisfy our notability and fiction criteria, my conclusion is that demonstrable real-world impact does not exist. But I hasten to add: this does not mean that this is a correct assertion.
Per the recent arbcom ruling, which exhorts:

The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question.

editors are invited to contribute to the question of how individual characters can be improved to meet our standards. What we do not need are !votes unsupported by reference to policy. What we DO need is:

agreement to redirect characters that fail to establish notability to the main Character list , or
clear demonstration that the assertion above, viz. demonstrable real-world impact does not exist is erroneous, in which case those character articles for which this is true should be retained.

It would be salutary if editors could weigh in with specific reference to our consensus notability and fiction policies, since that is where the crux of the solution lies. Providing clear links to sources that substantiate assertions of notability would be particularly commendable.
I would suggest that if, in a week, no clear demonstration of the existence of such sources can be adduced, these be redirected forthwith. Eusebeus (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of Nicholas Blake (Spooks) and perhaps others

Per the ancient discussion above, the way things are "organised" now just does not work. Stand-alone articles on fictional characters still need to show "real world" notability to be viable here. The article on Blake is little more than a reiteration of plot rather than character, and completely unsourced. Accordingly, it should be compressed to the essentials, and limited to a section in this list. Rodhull andemu 23:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links to redirects to this page

There are quite a few links to articles on characters that are just redirects to this page. I have removed a couple just now, and will have a look later to see what others need to be removed. Dunarc (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed links to 3 more that just redirected back to here.Dunarc (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other guest stars

I have removed Hugh Laurie from the list as his character Jools Siviter (who was recurring) is covered earlier in the article. Dunarc (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]