Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in the Hannibal series

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters in the Hannibal series[edit]

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

This purported list is not a list at all as none of the characters has its own WP page. If this is treated as a regular article about these fictional characters, the subject fails WP:N (and also the proposed Wikipedia:FICTION#Derivative articles). Those characters that do meet WP:N already have their own pages. These characters, if worth mentioning at all, should be covered in the article covering the book or movie in which they appear. Novaseminary (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of other minor character lists like this, and there's nothing in the nomination that articulates a policy-based reason why this cannot be improved and should otherwise be deleted. No objection to appropriate cleanup, nor to merging other characters into this list, but there's no reason to delete this. Jclemens (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The policy I suggest this fails is WP:N. These characters together have not been covered in reliable sources. And this is not a split off of an article about the series since the series does not have an article. The discussion of the minor characters of this series also necessarily, and irreparably, violates WP:SYNTH. Of course, that other pages like it might exist (WP:OSE) is not sufficient reason to keep it. I would be fine with this as a true WP:L list of characters with articles, but the list would be blank since none of these characters have articles. As a list it fails WP:L entirely. By considering it as an article, I was trying to give it the benefit of the doubt.Novaseminary (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*I am sort of neutral about this. The reason why is it's defianetly an reliable subject with important enough characters to talk about but it's lacking in sources. So Weak Keep for now. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But how does this meet WP:N (or, if one wanted to consider this an actual list, which at present it is not, WP:L)? nobody has proposed any sources that discuss these characters as a group, or even individually for that matter. If the subject is not notable on its own, it copuld still be discussed in an article that does meet WP:N, where appropriate one of the book or movie articles, or even a general article on the series. Novaseminary (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking on the article back again I am inclined to agree with you. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above plus where are the sources?--Dripping oil (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be the one of the problems. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this does not appear to meet WP:N. Karanacs (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence to verify that this list topic has been published in any form, let a notable. Wikipedia is a not a platform for original (primary) research: there are other venues such as fansites or Wikia where this list would be acceptable, but not here. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:42, 1 September 2010 (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.