Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Redwall characters

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. WP:V is a core policy; it mandates that unsourced content must be deleted if it is challenged and not properly sourced in response. In this light, the "delete" arguments are compelling, and the "keep" arguments, which do not address verifiability, must be discounted. The content is entirely unsourced, except for a single footnote to whatever this is - certainly not a reliable source. This reason for deletion is independent of the issue of notability. The content can be userfied or draftified via WP:REFUND if somebody wants to do the fancruft culling and sourcing that, as this discussion indicates, the content would need to survive as an article. Sandstein 13:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Redwall characters

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of Redwall characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a massive collection of novel by novel fictional characters. This franchise has around thirty novels. Most of them currently have articles. Character lists are not inherently necessary article forks, and even less so when you have a bunch of stories that seem to have many one-novel characters. Each article should easily be able to handle a summary style description of the characters in relation events of the book. There is a main article that should be completely sufficient to summarize any core characters. I don't think anything should be merged due to the bloated nature of the content. TTN (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:LISTN is easily met on this one. See the following sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.... I could go on but there's simply page after page of reliable sources discussing in-depth the characters of Redwall. The existence of articles on individual characters in the series is neither here nor there when it comes to this list of all the characters, as this is about the characters as a group. What probably does need to be done is to see just how many of the articles given over to specific characters in the Redwall series meet the requirements for notability, and which should simply be redirected/merged to this list. Additionally, merging the character list to the main article risks the main article becoming WP:TOOLONG, and as such this is a justifiable fork. FOARP (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Updated with sources - it does not matter if not every character is notable, what matters for WP:LISTN is whether the characters as a group are notable - and the sources do discuss the characters of Redwall as notable as a group, giving over paragraphs to discussing the common themes within them. FOARP (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty big stretch of LISTN. I don't buy it. You could argue that any source that discusses two things from a same set justifies having a list of items on that set. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that any article discussing two things from a set indicates notability for that set. I'm saying that any article which discusses the characters of Redwall as a group supports the notability of Redwalls characters, but does not need to mention every character. That's a classic use of WP:LISTN: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been" FOARP (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there's an issue here that might ultimately be too subjective for AfD in that what should constitute discussion for the characters and what should constitute discussion for the series at large. Much of what you posted seems to hit on the themes of the series rather than really exploring the characters themselves, but it's hard to say where that divide should actually occur. I think the main article would have to be in better shape to figure out how much weight was being applied to discussion on the characters. As it stands, I don't think that really applies to the characters as a whole. TTN (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That something could be hosted off-wiki is not a WP:DELREASON. Similarly, individual items within a list already having their own articles is not a WP:DELREASON. Even WP:FANCRUFT is not actually a WP:DELREASON even if it describes a kind of article that may well end up being deleted. As for the lack of sources indicating the notability of the characters of this series, these not being cited in the article right now is also not a WP:DELREASON per WP:NEXIST since they can be found. FOARP (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but refactor and cull brutally. The by-novel structure isn't really the right approach here, and the character summaries are, across the board, overlarge. As for the existence of the list in general... This is a very well-documented, well-studied, notable series. That's important, because it means there isn't really any question that we should have articles for the individual books and a "series" or "franchise" article. Further, the project recognizes that cast lists / character lists are a generally encyclopedic element of articles about fiction topics. My view is that standalone franchise character lists (whether those are for a film series, a TV show, or a collection of several dozen books) are effectively the character list for the franchise parent article; however, even written appropriately, they're fairly unwieldy, and so WP:SPINOUT advises that we should, well, spin them out. Now, I think there probably should be some guidance about how to select characters for these lists, and when a series/franchise is sufficiently weighty to warrant one. I'm ... vaguely tempted to go through the drama of an RFC on the issue when I get a spare moment I wasn't using for anything, but at this point, I've wandered fairly far afield of this specific AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with MASSIVE cleanup, per Squeamish Ossifrage - As stated, the Redwall series is certainly notable and a Character list is a normal thing to split off from the main series article. And, there are some sources on some of the characters. That does not, however, mean that every single plot detail about every single character in every single book needs to be included. So, basically, the current version of the list is completely unworkable, but a list of characters for the series should actually be a thing. So, either that means Keeping this mess and cleaning it up, or just Nuking this and starting over. And since WP:TNT isn't actual Wikipedia policy, I'll default to the former. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, at least as I apply it, WP:TNT is for when all of the content has to go before a useful article can be written – perhaps because the content is factually wrong, or written with such a biased perspective that keeping it is worse than having nothing, or that it's simply incomprehensible. This list needs to be refactored and edited down, but "too much detail" should never be a cause for nuking an article; fixing that is a normal editorial process. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are they really necessary, or has Wikipedia simply trained itself to think so? I feel like for a lot of people it's just simply a given, but much of the time they're quite functionally useless. If they're a split, they're supposed to be a place to reference necessary context unsuitable for general plot summaries, but it seems more often than not they either completely bare bones to the point of providing no context or completely bloated with regurgitated details. I feel like it blocks people from looking at other possible avenues to properly cover the information, especially when it's a series with dozens of plot related articles. TTN (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 10,943 Pageviews in the past 90 days. So some enjoy reading through it. Discuss editing on the article's talk page. Dream Focus 20:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • And? Arguments via pageviews have always seemed fairly pointless. There are many unsuitable topics that would otherwise garner ten times that amount in a week. This isn't about this article in particular, but challenging the idea you put forth that characters are a necessary split. I agree a character section is absolutely necessary 99% of the time, but is it really necessary to list every character? Looking at the difference between featured lists and the average character list, I feel like the average character list really has no place on Wikipedia. We cull other non-notable articles of in-universe item, but why are we so lenient on characters? TTN (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not clean-up. We are not here to determine which articles should get FA status. Comparing the articles that come here to featured articles is not helpful. The only question that really matters is whether this meets WP:LISTN, which it does. If the article is crufty, then have a go at editing it. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an attempt at cleanup. This is a bid for the removal of unnecessary content, and a question of why so much leeway is given to character lists when we have gotten to the point where most other fictional subsets have been rightfully culled. TTN (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Among other reasons, because they are permitted under current style guidelines. WP:WAF, inter alia, allows for the inclusion of plot summaries and cast/character lists (with some limitations) sourced solely to the primary work, presuming the work itself is notable. WP:SPLITLIST strongly implies, and WP:CSC explicitly states, that such character lists can be spun out to their own article for length (or presumably stylistic concerns, as those are otherwise equated over at WP:SPLIT). Now... even I will agree that's not without its own problems, and there's clearly tension between the various style guidelines here. And, yes, this list is a terrible mess that tries to end-run presenting plot elements in summary style. Fundamentally, I think, the question is whether things like character lists that are explicit spinouts (especially for article length purposes) have to meet the inclusion requirements as if they were fully stand-alone articles, or (as some of these guidelines suggest with varying degrees of specificity) as if they were still effectively sections in their parent topic. Ultimately, there's going to need to be some draft proposals and an RFC on this, I suspect. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But cull heavily and cleanup. WP:NOTCLEANUP actually does apply here, but it's better to actually try to clean it up then just throw the baby out with the bathwater.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. No sources. The book/book series might be notable, but the minutiae surrounding the narrative and plot is simply not notable nor is it worthy of a singular article. Perhaps if there was a notable character or plot, it could be included in the original article. But this outrageously long list is incredibly long and not very useful unless you were part of the (imaginably marginal) number of readers of this series. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 22-novel series obviously does not have a "marginal" number of readers. In fact, it's an incredibly popular series that got a TV series, an opera, and even upcoming video games. A list doesn't have to have notable characters to satisfy notability in general. The fact that the list is long and crufty is something that can be cleaned up and addressed.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:58, 15 November 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Redwall_characters&oldid=927297706"