Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Skulduggery Pleasant


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in Skulduggery Pleasant

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable list of self-proclaimed "minor" characters from a single novel and one sequel (and only the first appears to have any actual notability itself). It appears individual major character articles were also merged here, but as they are also already well covered in the main novel article, Skulduggery Pleasant, making those merges here rather redundant. Completely unsourced and fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. No significant coverage in any reliable, third party sources, article reads like a fansite with blatantly obvious lack of neutrality and the liberal addition of WP:OR. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —--  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: They're not minor characters. I changed the title. I'm also for keeping as there are seven more books coming out and the series is causing something of a sensation. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. The opening paragraph still described them as minor. Apologies. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two books out now. We do not consider future notability when the other possible books are coming out (no guarantee they ever will). Also, they are all still minor characters except the addition of the two mains. Nor, has a single piece of notability been established within the list, and only novel, the first, appears to have any notability at all.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge - but only the two Major characters with small sections in each novel article or perhaps have two articles on these main characters. Otherwise a major job of asserting notability would be necessary for this list. Looks very in-universe and has all the hall-marks of fancruft. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  17:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, again, items can be easily verified and out of universe sections built from reviews. No pressing need to redlink.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Even though the nominator cites WP:WAF it is ill-applied. Minor characters shouldn't have their own article, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be covered at all. Information of an appropriate length backed up by references is entirely appropriate by this guideline as well as WP:N. It's also impossible to describe fictional characters without resorting at least in part to plot details. - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And there is nothing here that says the should either. Establish notablility! The book clearly is, the minor character almost certainly are not. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  12:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete pretty much per the nomination. The collected list of these characters isn't notable under the guidelines of WP:N, and nothing can be added to the article that describes the reception of the collected list in the real world. Themfromspace (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM aside, just look at reviews of the books that discuss the characters as a whole for receptin sections. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Themfromspace (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - N, NOT and PLOT. Eusebeus (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It meets or has the potential to meet all of those. best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't be reading the same article I am then. If it "has the potential" you had better get you skates on then and demonstrate this notability to all these character in the article. And that is notability in the real world by the way!. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  10:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do thorough searches you will see that it is not a hoax. That editors took the time to work on this article concerning characters from two books means that it is notable to people in the real world.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a list of minor characters of a single novel and a sequel we are talking about. The characters can be described in the plot summary. Moreover, Skulduggery Pleasant already has a "character" section. In fact what we are dealaing here is nothing more than a refactorisation of the novel's WP:PLOT. No reason to add more characters in the first article. This would put more WP:WEIGHT than it should. A short character section can be added in the second article as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, than why not merge and redirect to the character section? Moreover, previous discussions on some of these characters closed as keep and keep before being unilaterally merged to this list (see  and .  Thus, we already have a consensus for separate articles on some of these characters.  Now we either restore those articles per those consensuses or we agree here that this list is a compromise.  Because these characters appear in multiple novels and can be verified from reliable sources, this list serves a navigational purpose to the other articles on the series.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If - it should remain it should be trimmed dramatically from the bloat that it now represents, needs to focus more on real world issues and focus on a select number of more major characters. And on the character more than Plot. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  23:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to that type of editing revision as a reasonable compromise. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Just because those AfDs closed as keep does NOT mean consensus can't change. Obviously, LATER consensus agreed to a merge here (and those were also non-admin closures with little traffic) and none of the issues actually addressed at all. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No consensus as far as I could see agreed with the merge here; it appears that TTN just did that in spite of the closes to keep at AfD and he did so without also adding the references that were in the articles. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That none of the primary editors disagreed with the merges is the same as agreeing. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see where they opposed these merges and if they did not oppose these merges then surely they do oppose deleting the merge location as I cannot imagine anyone saying, "Merge to here, but then delete that place". Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep although i don't agree with the some of the other keep comments. Consensus can change--indeed, I hope it is changing to unambiguous keeps on combination articles, which represent the obvious compromise way of handling minor characters. I can understand why someone would want to delete some articles on individual characters, though usually don't agree, but i totally do not understand the virtue of deleting those. I think, in fact, it shows an unwillingness to compromise.  This sort of list is the way to deal with not the major characters, but the minor ones; the major ones should have articles of their own. I'd say that almost all the characters presently on the list should be included; the relative importance of the character has already been considered to a certain degree.  The sections should furthermore deal at least as much with their role in the fiction as any RW significance. The significance of fiction is as fiction, and fictional characters as characters in fiction. That's a good deal of what people come here to find out about--and rightly so, for a modern comprehensive encyclopedia should cover this fully. Not to the level of a fan wiki, not background characters without a role, but coverage in proportion to the importance.  The plot of a fiction, is composed of the actions of the characters. I find for many of these fictions that the character articles give a better account of the plot than the actual articles on the plot; they're more understandable units.  DGG (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that for every book in this planet we should have a list of its characters and treated differently from its book summary/plot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we shouldn't for every book, but for instances such as this where it's a list of characters for a series, it does serve a navigational function as well. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sorry, but this seems like an acceptable spin-off article from the main article(s) with a paragraph or so for each, or each type, of character. This is exactly what good editing does when multiple characters span multiple titles. Otherwise each main article would need to summarize character development from the last title. Lists of characters from... articles are quite helpful in this regard. It centralizes and summarizes to help keep fictional elements from bloating and digressing. This seems an ideal and thoughtful way to organize this content. -- Banj e  b oi   09:32, 26 January 2009 (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.