Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Xena: Warrior Princess (2nd nomination)

List of minor characters in Xena: Warrior Princess

 * 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   Keep due to consensus, only delete !vote was by nom. Non-admin closure  D u s t i SPEAK!! 16:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely unnotable minor characters from the Xena series. Pure WP:PLOT of interest primarily only to fans of the series. These are characters whose primary importance in the series is in their background/relation to major characters, and those aspects are already covered in the relevant major character articles. No significant coverage of the minor characters in any reliable, third-party sources. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:N. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   —--  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Almost exactly what was said four months ago by the same nominator. Nothing's changed, and there's no reason to believe that the result will be any different. See previous AfD for all the arguments that are going to come up in this one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid speedy keep reason. And you are right, NOTHING in the article has changed, and the AfD was closed no consensus. Nothing changed, hence more than time to rediscuss. (also, um, that was six months ago, not four). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - the last AfD was closed as "no consensus". Given that the article hasn't improved (actually in my opinion it has gotten worse, compare this revision), a new AfD half a year later doesn't seem out of place. Huon (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. We should keep articles like this to have somewhere to redirect articles on individual minor characters, and to keep the main article at manageable size. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep True, bringing an afd 4 months after a non-consensus close is perfectly appropriate. But if the article still needs improvement, why are we wasting time arguing whether to delete it, instead of trying to improve it? Perhaps this time, though, we will have consensus to keep and improve; here's why: First, this is-- for reasons better or worse--in my opinion worse--considered a very notable fiction series; second because even the minor characters in even a moderately notable series are worthy of mention and a brief discussion; and third, because the best place for them is a list, not separate articles. Now, the reasons in the nomination: something about them is of relevance to any strange to the series who might hear the name--that's the purpose of an encyclopedia, to spare the ignorant the need to become fans; they are of importance it is even admitted in their relationship to the major characters, and thus do need to be explained--given such interactions, the best way to do it is to explain them all together; learning from the information in the present article, most of them typically interact with more than one of the major characters, and thus should be covered together (and to the extent they interact primarily with the eponymous heroine, grouping them together is all the more useful) --and besides, someone who is not a fan will scarcely know the relationships before seeing the article; then, there is not the slightest policy, guideline, or even custom, that routine information about a fiction that can be verified from the fiction itself needs to be verified from secondary sources--rather, the most accurate source for such description is the fiction, though interpretation must come of course from references--and, finally, there is no rule at all that the individual contents or items in an article must or should be independently notable ---if there were, we would have all articles and no text.  I have considerable respect for the nominator & am thankful for the detailed nomination-- but this is an example of the sort of article to be encouraged, not deleted. DGG (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Generally accepted way to present minor characters in a major series is to have a minor character's list. Hobit (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the generally accepted way to present minor characters is not at all. They are not notable, neither in the real world nor in the series itself. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. With due respect to Collectonian, Hobit is the one who is correct here. Minor characters list articles have been created in lieu of creating separate articles on each character, for series considered major enough (Xena qualifies on this score) for characters to have their own articles. Major characters get their own articles. Minor, recurring characters are notable, but not enough to justify their own articles. Therefore they get the "List of minor characters" treatment. 23skidoo (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Guess it depends on the project then. Others willingly accept that minor characters are just that, minor, and are certainly not notable enough to have their own list. Relevant minor characters belong in the single character list, but most of these aren't that important at all, not even within the series. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep to merge or to become a merge target. With 16kB, it's not really that big, and neither is List of Hercules and Xena characters. Plus, Xena character pages like Alti, Amarice, Borias (I just picked the first three in the template) look good for merging as well. Why not take the barely notable mess and make one good notable list? – sgeureka t•c 08:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but prune. Right now there are several non-recurring characters on the list; those would have to go unless their importance can be shown - real-world importance, that is. Huon (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Hobit, DGG. Standard spinout article to prevent main artilce from growing too large. Edward321 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2008 (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.