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 delete. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyhianna Selei. The article is entirely unsourced (not even to the books) and contains almost only plot summary. It violates WP:V ("If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it") and WP:N. The "keep" arguments do not address the lack of sources that is central to our core policy and have to be disregarded. Instead, they address the notability of the book series, which is unrelated to the question of whether there are reliable sources covering this character. The deletion of this article does not preclude, as DGG suggests, a brief and sourced description of the character in a parent article. Sandstein 05:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sauscony Lahaylia Valdoria Skolia[edit]

unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Character has 53 Google hits without the word Skolia and without quotemarks. There are precisely zero independent sources. A redirect is inappropriate because the article has about three page views a day, and this is not the character's actual name. Abductive (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep Central character in a series that has won several awards, including two Nebula Awards. Edward321 (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as on of the most central characters of the Saga of the Skolian Empire series. Otherwise merge per previous editor. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Centrality (especially to an obscure book series) is not a reason to keep articles. Abductive (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since when is a series that has won two Nebula Awards obscure? Edward321 (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From a sourcing perspective. Abductive (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any significant character in a notable work should get a one or two paragraph description. It doesn't matter how many characters there are--the more complicated the story, the more need to explain it fully and properly. We're here to provide encyclopedic information--and if the main work is worth covering in the first place, people are likely to want some degree of detail. Why else would you use an encyclopedia in the first place, if you didn't want detailed coverage? And, there is no valid reason why there should not at least be a redirect. Anything anyone might want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the character's name. There are no sources demonstrating this character is "significant"--the books ~~barely~~ are. Abductive (talk)

Delete keep voters assert only notability to plot, not to real life, which blatantly violates WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. Savidan 17:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in the real world, which is required by WP:WAF. Notability isn't inherited from the parent subject. Also contains no citations for verification, and reads like original research. Wikipedia isn't here to provide every single plot element of every single book, that's just beyond our scope. Them From Space 07:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.