Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunrunners of Goddess Keep


 * 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 and redirect the articles to an appropriate character list (at this time, probably the character list, as that seems headed toward a keep result). Whether and what to merge from each article is, as always, an editorial decision. History will be left intact as there does appear to be strong support for merging of some material. Note that the articles noted later in the discussion were not tagged as being part of it, and so have not been redirected, although of course this can be done if desired. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sunrunners of Goddess Keep

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Contested prod. Fictional characters for which there are no reliable sources to support notability. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are individual characters from the same series, again with no reliable sources:


 * Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I've already prodded AFD'd the obvious target (Characters of Dragon Prince) for the same reason. I'm still looking for sources to support notability for the individual books in the series, and I'm of the opinion that the merge of so many trivial details (to the books or the main series artice) would just have to be removed as WP:UNDUE - thus this AfD. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: the merge target is now at AfD too. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What even is this, an obscure webcomic? T3h   1337   b0y  03:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. It's a pair of fantasy novel trilogies written in the late 80s to early 90s. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge Per the above. I've deprodded the Characters article, since it's being discussed here.  Look, if you doubt the underlying notability of the novel series', you're going about this backwards: If the novel series are not notable, AfD them, and if successful all this content will be much easier to AfD on the basis that they're characters from a non-notable series.  But since the character list and the book series articles are currently bluelinked, you've got obvious merge targets.  Strike at the heart of the matter, rather than the periphery, and you get much less resistance to removing content. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW brief searches like gnews and gbooks show clearly that the books meet the GNG, and look promising that they might meet WP:BK as well. Thus, there's no justification yet for removing character articles that can just as readily be trimmed and merged to an appropriate character list. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the novels might be notable (I've now found at least one review for each novel) whereas I'm fairly certain these aren't and so I've nominated them for deletion per WP:DEL. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to the Dragon Prince character list. Notable author, notable books - and still on sale. Peridon (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or redirect to character list per Jclemens; do not keep as separate articles as their notability is not (and probably cannot be) established. They are somewhat likely search terms though, as is the case with most fictional characters, so a redirect should be left, also to prevent recreation. – sgeureka t•c 08:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What happens with these articles should also be done with the following character articles from this series (per Category:Dragon Prince characters): – sgeureka t•c 08:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Agreed - good thinking. Peridon (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * merge There is a suitable merge target even if this content fails notability guidelines. 24.114.233.34 (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge support merge as a way to build consensus. Lacks sufficient coverage in third party sources to verify notability Shooterwalker (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- what content do you think is mergeable? Where are the sources? Reyk  YO!  22:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;even the main articles do not demonstrate notability as of yet. As far as I'm concerned, a "Characters of Dragon Prince" subarticle is not warranted at this time. There is no reason to discuss detailed story information unless the characters have been discussed in multiple reliable sources, such as reviews or author interviews. We are a general encyclopedia; topics receiving significant coverage in at least a couple reliable sources can be overviewed, as long as they are not given undue weight (e.g. 100kb). There are quite a few movie and video game character sub-articles because they include out-of-universe information in addition to plot summaries &mdash; there are dozens and dozens of Final Fantasy reviews, as well as published interviews with the developers. A redirect may be appropriate until someone can find, at the very least, some sort of reception and criticism of the characters. Published interviews with the author can also be a great way to dig for conceptual information.
 * In short, I feel deletion is too strong an option, though not completely off the mark. Why not redirect these articles and preserve the edit history in the event that out-of-universe material is found? &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 23:22, 6 November 2010 (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.