Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other characters of Xanth


 * 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   merge to List of Xanth characters. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Other characters of Xanth

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

If we assume that the Xanth series is notable, we already have a Family of Humfrey of Xanth article, a Magicians of Xanth article, a Family of Merlin of Xanth article, a Family of Ebnez of Xanth article, and four other articles on groups of characters in Xanth. This one has no references and asserts no notability other than these characters appear somewhere in one of the books. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment None of these articles are referenced in a meaningful way. At best this should be one article containing all the characters, I would say merge them but there is still the problem with verification.  I admittedly know nothing about this topic and don't care to investigate. Drawn Some (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Every character in this list was either a key protagonist in at least one novel, or is a recurring character that has appeared in many books.  Given the prevalence of character lists such as this for a great many major series, I'm inclined to accept that this list is as notable as any other.  The lack of referencing is not a reason in and of itself for deletion, but since I suspect that an overwhelming majority of book related character lists are either completely unreferenced, or badly underreferenced, it might be better to discuss the validity of such lists on a wider scale. Resolute 02:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Arguing that other stuff exists doesn't establish notability for this stuff. Here is where this stuff is discussed. Drawn Some (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: some would have it that the lack of referencing is a crucial reason not to keep - with no consensus on WP:FICT one must fall back on general principals of notability. But others would disagree.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, except for the part where this list is not dealing with people, per se, so WP:GNP doesn't really apply. My point on this article is that it is not a list of trivial characters.  Rather, it is a list of major characters of a major series that is now well over 30 books.  Lack of referencing is a widespread issue when it comes to book related lists.  Most of the articles at List of Middle-earth characters would serve as a good example of this.  So would many, many other book series character lists I have encountered.  If we want to go down that route, then I think it would behoove us to engage in a wider discussion over the validity of such lists, since  they overwhelmingly can only be sourced to the novels the characters appear in.  And since your argument here would put hundreds of articles under the guillotine. Resolute 13:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately WP:GNP applies to the subject of articles not just to people, so it does apply here - and to all the other lists. But I'm focusing on this one for the time being.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:GNP is an essay, not a guideline or policy, so it really doesn't apply to anything, it simply expresses a viewpoint. Frankly, This essay has no more power than WP:FICT, so I don't buy it as a valid deletion rationale. Resolute 21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad - too many TLA's for me. What I meant (of course) was WP:GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.  This doesn't.  Simples.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm sure there are far too many lists of Xanth characters on Wikipedia but I don't see the point of just removing the characters that don't belong to any of the more specific lists. Citius Altius (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep With 34 novels in the series covering several generations of characters, there are going to be characters that are important yet unconnected with any other group in the series. I think that 34 novels in the series would make the series notable too. LA (T) @ 16:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've no doubt that the series is notable. The problem is that this list of characters is not notable except in an in world context.  The only current guidance on the subject (WP:GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.) suggests that in-world significance alone is not sufficient.  Also, you have the problem that all of this is original research - its source is someone reading the book and then summarising the characters.  Again, according to current guidelines, articles should not normally contain original research. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Lady Aleena and Resolute. These are important characters from the series, and the information needs to be retained. (Until next time... Anon e Mouse Jr.) Anon e Mouse Jr. (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe they do have in-world significance, but the current guideline (WP:GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.) suggests that in-world significance is not sufficient.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Character lists are acceptable spinout articles to keep the main article from growing too long. Edward321 (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now this is a far more interesting point. Sometimes you do have to create spin out articles to avoid the original article turning into something huge, but you then face the problem that what you spin out does not of itself has notability - because notability is not inherited.  There isn't really a single guideline that resolves this - when is a spinout so non-anything that it should be deleted (eg spin outs that are nothing more than track listings for albums by indie bands that only have half page articles to start with), and when does it form such a major entity that the fact that it does not of itself pass WP:GNG  is potentially no longer a reason to support deletion.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename Characters of Xanth or merge to the list of characters, with breakout articles/articles with the character information being linked properly. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "Other Recurring Characters of Xanth"? (Until next time... Anon e Mouse Jr.) Anon e Mouse Jr. (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Fails WP:V, so at it stands it should be deleted. However, list articls such as this (its a list even though its done in prose and doesn't have "list of" are exempt from size restrictions so all of the articles could be placed into 1 Characters of Xanth or List of characters in Xanth. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as lists are there to provide support to the coverage provided in articles about works of fiction by listing the elements that feature in the articles, not an exhaustive list of fictional elements that ever existed. This list clearly fails WP:NOT and combined with the fact that the list is riddled with unverifiable original research, there is no rationale for keeping it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above "vote" came here from Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction) as this AfD seems to be somse kind of test case. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 12:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Only a test case in my head. There was such a consensus on this page for keeping, and for the idea that notability of the series covers all the articles about the series - something which (once somebody raised it) I can see some logic to, and which [|a previous RfC] established that 50% of editors were in agreement with.  I have suggested the idea as a proposal in Requests for comment/Notability and fiction, to see whether it does have any legs, but I fear it has no support there as it definitely does go against the current application of notability.  If the closing admin is concerned,Gavin Collins and  陣  are probably here because this AfD has been referred to elsewhere by myself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable list of fictional characters without any WP:RS to support their notability nor any real-world perspective on their creation, reception by critics, controversies, etc., etc. Makes it a list of In-Universe indiscriminate information, and so it appears this fails on multiple counts at once. Agree with above 'other foo exists is not enough' responses as well. This material's not important enough to the topic that all of these characters cannot be dealt with with a carefully written dependent clause in the relevant book article - 'Beauregard the Demon, a literal demon in a bottle who answers questiosn to help Humphrey, told bink to go to X.', for example. ThuranX (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge. To List of Xanth characters as a section "Other characters of Xanth" and clean-up that article to express how the characters are organized. Agree with nom that short child articles still need to be well organized but deleting them is not needed here. -- Banj e  b oi   01:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep All characters should have information listed about them. Not sure why the other article doesn't do that.  I guess it'd be too long.  There are other lists, such as the Magicians_of_Xanth, which contain all other notable characters.  One list for the centaur, one for the goblins, one for various families, so all other notable characters who weren't on one of those lists, got put here, in the Other characters of Xanth.  Makes sense.  Look at the bottom of the article, and see the list?  And before nominating this, why not discuss your concerns on the talk page of the article?  Could have cleared up right away why the list exists and why it is necessary.   D r e a m Focus  01:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there is a legitimate question as to whether these child lists are notable. And this is a question that would affect nearly every major book series we've written about.  The nominator's decision to list this for a deletion debate is not out of place Resolute 02:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * These lists come up for deletion all the time. Sometimes they are saved, sometimes they aren't, depending on who is around at the time to notice and participate in the AFD.  There is no set rule established.  I have personally participated in quite a number of these.  And AFD should be a last resort, not the first thing done.   D r e a m Focus  03:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There are set rules - Wikipedia's style and content policies which provide us with the freedom to write articles without the need for an editoral board to supervise us. These policies say that this type of standalone article does not belong in Wikipedia because it conflicts with these policies, so it should be deleted. It fails WP:NOT as well as all three of Wikipedia's core content polices. There are no reliable sources to verify its content which is filled with opinions about these fictional characters that is pure original research. This article fails WP:NPOV as it is basically a content folk, because, as ThuranX points out, it does not contain any commentary, criticism, context or analysis about its subject matter that is not already contained elsewhere, such as the article Xanth. To be honest, there is no reasonable reason to keep this list. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All content can easily be verified. I found on the official website of the writer, a pdf which list all the characters, and what books and pages they appear in. Xanth Character Database I added that to the reference sections.  And having read most of the Xanth novels, I read through the entire article, and found nothing that isn't mentioned in the books.   D r e a m Focus  11:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment To demonstrate that its content is not original research, the contributors should have cited reliable sources that directly support the information as it is presented. Since they have not done so, it impossible to verify any of the content of this article, for without citations, matching the content of this article with its source would be analogous to searching for a pin in a haystack. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the link I provided. Checking that pdf, for any name on the list, you can verify the information.  Since the list has them all in alphabetical order, it won't take anyone more than a few seconds to find it.  And I don't think you need a page number to find something, if its listed in alphabetical order.   D r e a m Focus  15:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The pdf is self-published by the author Piers Anthony, and reproducing this source is probably a copyright violation. This may well be the last nail in the coffin.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This may well be the silliest distortion of WP:V ever. Citius Altius (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read self-published] thoroughly. There is no violation here. Any information from that .pdf is originally published in one of the books, and simply collected there for easy reference. Referring the books directly, or this collection of the information, gives the same result. And I see no copyright violation. Use the talk page of the article to discuss it, or tag any part you believe to be in violation of copyrights. [[User:Dream Focus |  D r e a m Focus  09:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have made my comments on the talk page. Basically this article plagairises the author's published notes. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If it is plagairizing, that disproves your claims of it being original research. And if you really do think it is a copyright violation, you should tag the article appropriately and see if the admins agree with your opinion. Edward321 (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK I vote keep because the idea that "there are no reliable sources to verify its content" is too silly. Citius Altius (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of its content is plainly derived from the books - which one would agree is verifiable if only someone put some references in. Some of it appears to be opinion - I don't know whether this is directly verifiable in the primary sources.  None of it is notable - I seriously doubt anyone can find a reliable secondary resource (ie not the books, not the Xanth fanwiki if such a thing exists, not The Big Xanth Compendium etc) which even mentions these characters in passing, let alone says that they are notable.  Gavin Collins statement of the current position appears to be correct.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The "not notable argument" is a good one and it's pity people can't stick to more sensible arguments like that. Citius Altius (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually there's at least a mention of Beauregard in First contact: a reader's selection of science fiction and fantasy‎ by Bonnie Kunzel, Suzanne Manczuk. But the strongest "keep" argument seems to be that these lists are acceptable spinouts if the main topic is sufficiently notable. I would like to see that addressed properly. Citius Altius (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore Gavin Collins appears to agree that "lists are there to provide support to the coverage provided in articles about works of fiction by listing the elements that feature in the articles, not an exhaustive list of fictional elements that ever existed". This is certainly not an exhaustive list... Citius Altius (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of Xanth characters as article clearly fails naming conventions at WP:LISTNAME. If these characters would not be expected to be found within List of Xanth characters per the criteria at WP:LSC, then instead delete. Hiding T 10:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Jenny is quite notable and other characters like the Gap Dragon get around. Organising all this Xanth material is best done by ordinary editing and deletion would be disruptive to this.  Colonel Warden (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden, where is your evidence that Jenny is notable? Is she regularly mentioned in reviews?  Has someone written an analysis of the series that says that Jenny is notable?  Have there been serious discussions about who might play her in a film or tv show?  Is she cited in works analysing characters in fantasy novels?  If the answer is along the lines of 'she is notable because she appears in several books', then that's not what notability in Wikipedia is about.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Three words: "Letters to Jenny". She is based on a real person, whose involvement with Xanth helped shape the series for almost an entire third of the first trilogy, from her debut in book 13 to her marriage in book 22. Even today, people continue to write to the author in order to ask how her Mundane counterpart is doing, and he continues to note her progress in the author's notes of his books, even when her elf version isn't present in them. I'd say that's pretty notable. (Until next time... Anon e Mouse Jr.) Anon e Mouse Jr. (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent stuff. Add it in - at least there's the evidence now for an article on Jenny (I wonder why did she never get an article of her own, if she's that notable)Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: since it's been raised, the part of WP:V that relates to Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves says the following:- Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I don't believe copyvio is the issue here, as I think the text has been rewritten by the authors, and could as easily have been derived from original research. The issue with this article is that it appears to be only based on the Xanth database, which is not a third party source. From WP:BOP If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Find me a third party source on this list of characters, and I will withdraw immediatelyElen of the Roads (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What kind of thing do you have in mind? Citius Altius (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the whole problem (have you been following the latest RfC? It's quite interesting really). Shakespeare can produce scholarly tomes analysing every character - because his works are set as exam texts across the English speaking world.  Most works of fiction, even most major book and tv/film series, don't have this depth of third party background, making it very hard to meet the requirements of WP:V and WP:N, which were designed with articles about Albert Einstein  or Nuclear Fission in mind.  I actually think this is one list too many - there are a dozen other articles on characters from Xanth (and none on Jenny, who on the evidence of Anon e Mouse Jr. is the notable character), but if WP:V and WP:N were rigorously applied, all of them should be deleted.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you want to delete every listed character that doesn't have a third party source? Citius Altius (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be what WP:V (which is the policy we have at the moment would appear to have us do. If you have a different interpretation, I'm all ears. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh. Basically this is nothing to do with verifiability so it doesn't seem right to delete based on WP:V. Citius Altius (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding variation in interpretation about Wikipedia policies among most editors - for example I think it's absolutely clear, and you think it doesn't apply. I do find this interesting - it is perhaps the ultimate barrier to Wikipedia every achieving it's founder's goals (I am reserving judgement on whether or not this is a good thing......)Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You want to delete perfectly verifiable material according to a policy called "verifiability" so something is broken somewhere. Why don't you move those statements to WP:N where they belong? Citius Altius (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I'm afraid they belong here pet (sorry, inappropriate, my age is showing).  Wikipedia has a policy that Encyclopaedic content must be verifiable - you'll find it says so immediately below the edit window.  As part of that statement, it links to WP:V which has been extensively quoted here.  Therefore, either this article goes down as a policy breach, or the discussion on the policy starts here.  Your choice.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK discussion of WP:V: WP:V is there to ensure content is verifiable. This content is verifiable. End of discussion. Find another policy if you to delete this. Citius Altius (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You want to take a look at WP:WAF?
 * 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.