Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ranger's Apprentice 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ranger's Apprentice characters[edit]

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

I am nominating this character list on two grounds. Firstly, I don't believe that this set of characters is notable as a stand-alone list. Google searches for reliable information written about the characters of this series return little to nothing. While the list is 46,207 bytes long, none of it is currently sourced. Secondly, articles about fictional topics should be written from a real-world perspective, as opposed to an in-universe perspective. Reading the content of each character description, I'm finding that most of them are less than encyclopedic, and many are written in-universe. The list is so long and so overly detailed that even if the list is notable, it would be better if we just blow it up and start over. Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the nomination. This list is excessively long and written in an in-universe style. It has no available sourcing, either in the article or anywhere else that I can find. It fails our requirements regarding verifiability and notability, and devoting so much space to such a trivial list is a violation of undue weight as well. Reyk _YO! 08:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN. A case of WP:FAN, way too much detail that has increased fivefold since being created in 2008, book series is notable, this list is not, only of niche interest to the fans. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2015 (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.