Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Didius Falco


 * 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 Lindsey Davis. There is clearly consensus against keeping an article about the fictional character. But there is also no consensus here for making an article about his book series out of what we have. The people who propose this merely assert that the series is notable (to the extent they make any arguments); but they do not tell us which sources establish notability, which would be needed because the series's notability is also being contested. At any rate, the title is a reasonable search query, so a redirection to the author makes sense as an WP:ATD. This also allows interested editors to create a (well-sourced, notability-establishing) series article out of the history, if this is possible.  Sandstein  09:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Marcus Didius Falco

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fictional character of questionable notability. The sources provided are all primary/self published. In my own search, I'm not seeing any significant independent coverage to indicate the character satisfies WP:GNG. Redirection is appropriate in my opinion, but this has been contested in the past so a formal discussion is needed Polyamorph (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep but perhaps rework and move to become an article on the 20-volume Falco series and split the Flavia Albia series into a new article: no reason for her series to be described under her stepfather's name. This is a notable series by a major British writer, some has already been adapted for BBC Radio 4 and there is discussion of ITV television version to come. Pam  D  09:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Have added a couple of independent sources and an external link. Pam  D  10:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Withdraw it has become clear to me that this is a notable book series. This requires cleanup/splitting/moving, but these are not deletion issues. Polyamorph (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They are also a good read: not grand literature but well written, accurately researched, and fun. Give them a try. Pam  D  12:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I will! Polyamorph (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Userfy/Draftify The references are terrible. Having a website on the Falco novels myself, I would split off the Flavia Albia books (Falco rarely appears) and send this back to draft for better references. Not enough research has been done here. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lindsey Davis. The references don't seem to support the assumption that either the character or the series is notable, but a plot summary+adaptations sections could for now be used to beef up the article about the author, which can discuss the series until it becomes notable enough to deserve a stand-alone article (if ever). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it the character or the book series that is actually notable? Most of the references are about the latter, not the former. They don't demonstrate the notability of either, by the way. Avilich (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename and split, as first suggested by User:PamD. The series is extremely notable. "Falco series" is more often used than "Falco novels" or "Falco mysteries", although all three are legitimate. Also split off the Albia series as suggested. BTW this is also how the template is organized. See (and after splitting link) left-hand side.

gidonb (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discusss whether this should be reworked as an article about the series or merged. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. Article by and large fails WP:PLOT, and most of what is said in the rather trivial Reception section concerns the series rather than the character. There seems to be nothing close to significant coverage of the character to satisfy GNG. If better sources are actually found, this can be redone at a later date, and an article on the series can be started from scratch rather than through a split. Avilich (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Avilich. The character has virtually no coverage in reliable third party sources, leaving nothing here that would be appropriate for an article. There are signs that the character may belong to a notable book series. But the book series is a different topic and should be written as such. I wouldn't understand the value of keeping this, but if it is, it would need to be completely rewritten from scratch. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as an article about the series (which it essentially already is). I'm surprised we're still discussing this after the nominator withdrew support. pburka (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The series hardly seems to be notable either: most of the individual book articles in the above template seem to be 100% plot summaries and fancruft, and the sourcing in the portrayal fiction is very limited, as has been pointed out. Nothing prevents anybody from starting this from scratch, if better sources are indeed available, but so far a convincing rationale for keeping hasn't been shown. Avilich (talk) 00:36, 16 December 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.