Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warriors characters (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator, with no other editors arguing for the article to be deleted or redirected. (non-admin closure) Haleth (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

List of Warriors characters
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

No independent, reliable sources cited, or to be found elsewhere. The series itself is certainly notable, but this article on a lot of characters, none of whom meet the WP:GNG individually or collectively, should be deleted. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information or a fansite. The article has not been improved substantially since the last time it was nominated. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator per discussion below - current policy appears to support keep. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Series is notable, list of characters is too long to fit in series article per WP:SIZE. I was expecting to see a whole lot of plot summary, but as I reviewed it just now, the amount per character was quite terse and reasonable. It does not appear to be indiscriminate in any way. References to primary sources are present, which are sufficient to meet V for non-disputed facts, and because the character list is essentially the same topic as the series, we have enough documentation to show that the series is notable, and the RS'es that establish that also demonstrate notability here, per WP:NEXIST. Overall, the nomination is highly problematic, in that I don't understand what policy-based defect the nominator is asking that we resolve by deletion. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, and why doesn't it seem too excessive? Look at the changes since the last AfD was closed 4.5 months ago. (9 to 4 keep, was closed as "no consensus" in an apparent supervote) Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm aware that the article was significantly shortened since the last AfD, but I don't think the changes have enhanced the article's claim to notability. I searched for a specific policy on lists of fictional characters, but couldn't find one. Is there a relevant specific policy? I definitely might have missed something. If not, I would argue that the series being notable (which I agree it is) does not make a list of characters notable. *None* of the characters appear to be non-trivially discussed in reliable, independent source, either individually or as a group. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at WP:SIZE again. Does a list of characters go into an article about a work? Absolutely--our articles on films, books, and TV series list characters. In many cases, many to most of those individual characters are individually non-notable, but that doesn't preclude their inclusion in the relevant section of the article. So, absent WP:SIZE this could be drag-and-drop merged into the Warriors series article. What is the topic of a list of X characters? X.  So if Warriors (novel series) is notable, List of Warriors characters is, too, because it's one topic split into two (or more, if we subdivide it further) articles. This is not a List of fictional rutabagas (I sure hope that stays a redlink) which almost certainly would be a non-encyclopedic cross categorization, nor is it a series of articles on each individual character. It's somewhat akin to WP:POKEMON, in that the de facto preferred way to represent large numbers of marginally-to-non-notable verifiable fictional elements is in such a list. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , but is there any way to determine what characters are worth including, based on reliable sources? After all, other similar pages of movie and book characters do not include literally *every* character - they leave out bit parts, side characters, etc. How do they determine who to include? By references to IMDB, reviews, independent analysis in reliable sources, etc. I'm just not sure how we could reasonably determine which characters to include for this series without resorting to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to make judgements about which are important enough to make the cut. The better solution is to simply say that as none of the characters seem to be even close to independently notable and their inclusion on the main article's page is not necessary, we can lose the character list altogether. I can see your case, but I lean on the side of deletionism where it is so easy for these pages to rapidly get out of hand because fandom is involved, as this page previously did. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight... you want to delete an entire page because it might get out of hand? Leaving aside the WP:NOTCLEANUP fatal flaw in your argument, the evidence has already been raised that editors are, indeed, capable of trimming such a list appropriately. Why do fan-favorite lists grow in the first place? Because random Internet users with little Wikipedia familiarity feel motivated to contribute to it! The arguments that each entry in a list must be notable run afoul of WP:CSC where the lack of notability criteria is explicitly listed as a policy-based reason to aggregate such elements into a list. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I encountered the article in its "cleaned-up" state - that's not why I nominated it for AfD. The WP:CSC argument is much more persuasive, and makes me wonder if I ultimately think the policy is the issue and not this article specifically, upon learning more via your links. In which case I might withdraw this nomination and think about an appropriate forum to discuss the policy. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well-sourced, and serves as a good reference for those who may be reading the main articles on Warriors and want to find further information on it. The article has been trimmed to such a point that it does not contain information that is not important to the series. Perhaps even more characters could be removed from the article, and only the most important characters left, if the article is not notable enough to be of a larger size. Blubewwy (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2021 (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.