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 List of The Elenium and The Tamuli characters. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sparhawk[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not establish notability independent of David Eddings' works through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. I am also nominating this related character with the same issues:

Keep both. My involvement was actually to create Sparhawk as a redirect. However Wikipedia is improved as a result of the expansion into an article. Sure the page has problem with lack of references. But that is a reason to improve it more not delete it. These two characters are main characters in a major series of books. So there is a claim of importance even if not referenced yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being major characters does not make them suitable for inclusion, as notability is not inherited. Without providing something to show notability after ten and five years in existence, simply implying that sources must exist is also an invalid argument. TTN (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added sources to the Sparhawk article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't appear to provide significant coverage of the character. They're all passing mentions describing the overall series without much singular focus on the character. For them to count, they should at least provide some sort of significant analysis of or reaction to the character. I wouldn't expect an entire chapter on the character, but I would think establishing notability would require more than a few sentences summarizing plot. TTN (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to character list or delete. These characters have not established notability independent of the book series. Seems hard to believe I read these books thirty years ago. I have vague memories of liking the characters, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep an article. Nor is the fact that they are protagonists. See WP:42 for a brief rundown on what's required for an article. Merely mentioning plot details associated with the character is not enough. We need real-world details, such as what went into its creation, inspirations, and critical analysis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Elenium and The Tamuli characters. I'm a fan of the work, and Sparhawk is a central character, but there simply isn't enough substantial independent coverage of this character to justify a standalone article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The primary argument for deletion here was that the article lacked references, but this deficiency has been remedied. There now being no valid argument to redirect-with-deletion-of-the-edit-history (WP:42 should not be cited at AfD), the remaining issue is a content issue as to whether or not this breakout article should be returned to List of The Elenium and The Tamuli characters. However, this argument has twice been rejected by the editors on the talk page. As per WP:Deletion policy, content arguments at AfD can be promptly closed by any editor. As an aside, the List article has no references, so perhaps it should have been included in this nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, I've had a look at the sources provided, and except for Bleiler which I don't have easy access to, none of them describe the character of Sparhawk (as opposed to the Elenium trilogy itself) in any great detail. One is also not independent, being the website of Eddings' publisher. I am more convinced now that this does not meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I can't quickly cite a guideline, but I think that breakout articles don't have to satisfy WP:GNG, while it is preferred that they do. I'm much more concerned in your review by the possibility that there is a substantial amount of material in the current article that is not WP:V verifiable. That would be a perfect reason to merge back to the parent article and remove the unverifiable material. The reason to keep the current article would be because it is properly WP:RS sourced so we want to WP:PRESERVE the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 08:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete per Lankiveil. The sources provided don't pass muster for WP:GNG best as I can tell. Prefer redirect over deletion, though, as it's sort of alluded to. GRUcrule (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2014 (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.