Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of X-Play characters (2nd nomination)

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. Tone 19:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of X-Play characters[edit]

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

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

This is another excessively long, unsourced wall of fancruft that better belongs on Wikia. Reyk _YO! 16:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. On one hand it's a content fork from the original article that would be too big to merge, as is shown in this article's first edit. On the other hand the article's condition is hideous - just ask the episodes that are externally-linked in the body. ミラ P 02:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is really no sourced information here, thus negating the need to merge anywhere. Likewise, I was unable to find any sources that would indicate that this vast collection of minor "characters" is at all notable. This is just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of overly detailed cruft. Most, if not all, of these entries are completely non-notable "once, Adam dressed up as *insert random character*" style entries that have no encyclopedic value. Rorshacma (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has exactly one source - that links to a forum post. I couldn't find significant, independent coverage on the set of characters for the article to comply with GNG. The article is thus original research in its entirety. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:57, 1 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.