Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank and Helen


 * 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 redirect to The Magician's Nephew. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 21:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Frank and Helen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is just a very long, overly detailed summary of the plot of The Magician's Nephew. We already have a much more succinct summary of the events of that book at the main article, making this a WP:REDUNDANTFORK with a very unlikely search term as its name.  I suppose it could be Redirected to that book's article, but again, the name of the article is not a particularly useful search term. Rorshacma (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete due to being an overly detailed WP:REDUNDANTFORK of The Magician's Nephew. Maybe a redirect would be appropriate, but I agree with Rorshacma that it's an obscure search term anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Another cookie-cutter, drive-by nomination whose unsupported claims don't check out. The subjects are notable being covered in detail in multiple sources such as The Cabby / King Frank; Believing in Narnia; Taking the Adventure; &c.  WP:NEXIST and WP:ATD therefore apply, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 12:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This article has existed for 15 years. Why we have let so many articles exist in such an abyssmal state for so long is a very good question. It is entirely in universe in perspective, and since the characters are minor ones who appear in only one work even though at some analysis they should be mentioned in multiple works, but are not because of the odd order that C. S. Lewis wrote the Chronicles of Narnia. Any and all analysis that is needed can be included in the article on the book.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to the article on The Magician's Nephew. There is just plain not enough on these characters to justify a full fledged seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to The Magician's Nephew. The topic has no stand-alone notability and, since it is completely unsourced and written in an in-universe style, it has exactly zero mergeable content. Reyk YO! 15:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Magician's Nephew (or possibly List of The Chronicles of Narnia characters). It's unsourced fancruft. The coverage Andrew presents might be enough for a stand-alone article, but I certainly don't think there's any reason to keep the article in its current state. It's pretty heavily linked, however (maybe a lot of those links are from a template), suggesting that there's value in keeping a redirect. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Magician's Nephew, the coverage presented is not enough to pass GNG, and the article is nothing but a plot description, so it fails NOTPLOT. As a result, it contains nothing that should be merged. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect per the arguments that we cannot merge a bunch of unsourced fancruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect per the arguments and lack of sources. Topic does not meet the WP:GNG for a reliably sourced stand-alone article, but there's probably a good redirect target somewhere. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2020 (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.