Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Evernight characters

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 Evernight (series). (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 05:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Evernight characters

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

Nominating for deletion per WP:NOT. This is incredibly detailed WP:Fancruft listing everything about every character for a book series that is not even highly notable to begin with. Even if the fancruft were removed, the existence of this page does not seem to be warranted. Lapislazulia (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they do not contain any (non-fancruft) content that is not already included in Evernight (series), nor do they really have the potential to do so:

Lapislazulia (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge all Nom does not articulate any applicable NOT category. Still, with the amount of RS coverage I'm not finding, I don't see the need for this many spinout articles, hence my recommendation to merge and trim as viciously as needed. With a cursory glance, I'm having trouble differentiating this from a Twilight ripoff. Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per Jclemens. There's a few reviews for each book, but not enough to justify individual articles. Merging them all into the short series page would be fine. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Evernight (series). I'm not seeing WP:RS that suggests this level of detail in a standalone article is warranted. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:28, 2 December 2017 (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.