Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family of Bink of Xanth


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  19:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Family of Bink of Xanth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Much like the other Xanth-related articles that have come up on AFD, this article is just a massive amount of Cruft on a bunch of minor fictional characters, with no claim to notability and no sources. And, like the other articles, it should be deleted rather than redirected, as the name of the article "Family of Bink of Xanth" seems to have been created by this article.  The only places where this phrase is used are mirrors of this article.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are around 40 novels in the Xanth series and many characters in this family tree have been major characters in the novels. I was not around to save Goblin family of Xanth which should have been kept for the same reason. So unless every fictional family tree on Wikipedia is getting deleted, then a family tree which spans dozens of novels should be kept. Keeping track of the relationships in the Xanth series is easier with family trees. LA (T) @ 19:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not Wikipedia's job to keep track of fictional family trees without reliable sources backing up why the information presented within has notability outside of the fictional universe they exist in. Without them, they are nothing more than WP:CRUFT and belong on Wikias, not Wikipedia.  So, unless there are reliable sources backing up why this entire family is notable enough to sustain an article, there is no policy-based argument for keeping it.  And no, not every fictional family tree needs to be deleted, just the ones that have no sources that cause it to meet the requirements of the WP:GNG.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Really just the one summary article for Xanth should do, or a main article and a character list, and I'm not sure this adds anything important. Artw (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The character list is currently in the thousands. Dividing the characters by familial relationships seems to be a good choice. LA (T) @ 19:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not a thing. The concept of the family was made up by the one who wrote the article. It should be deleted.Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds  03:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Will you please explain how the concept of this fictional family was made up? The relationships were taken from the novels in the series. LA (T) @ 19:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The concept of a connected 'family', while it can be logically extrapolated from the books, is not mentioned in independent reliable sources and as such is not notable or worthy of an article.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds  01:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete; I do not find LA's arguments for keeping the article, in the apparent absence of any decent third party sources, compelling. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How would a third party have more information on this family than the novels and author? LA (T) @ 19:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of information (as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information), it's a question of notability. The existence of coverage in reliable third party sources is what separates notable characters from non-notable characters. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.