Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voices of the Gods


 * 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 Age of the Five. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Voices of the Gods

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * comment I see no actual research, original or summarizing, and no plot information, necessary or unnecessary. I see miscellaneous descriptive material which needs to be integrated into proper articles on this series if they ever get written. As its a best -selling author, i assume the books are important enough to be worth the coverage, but this sort of way of going about it is not helpful. I can't reply to the third sentence of the nomination, because I do not know what it means. DGG (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * improve, merge, redirect. Content should be saved for a rewrite. I was sorely tempted to !vote keep per nom. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete'- there seems to be this belief that every major or major-ish character in a work of fiction is automatically entitled to an article. That's a lot of bunk. It leads to bad articles like this one, which has no sources and is just a reiteration of bits of the plot because there's nothing to be said about the real-world impact of the subject. Reyk  YO!  03:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect if the term is searchable enough, something I cannot judge. But yeah, sheesh, does every fictional sneeze and fart deserve an article on WP? Drmies (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  02:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect: No luck trying to find independent notability on Google. Ryan 4314  (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:35, 16 December 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.