Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magicians of Xanth

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 merge to List of Xanth characters. King of ♠ 07:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magicians of Xanth[edit]

Magicians of Xanth (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 article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are around 40 novels in the Xanth series and many characters on this character list have been major characters in the novels. I was not around to save Goblin family of Xanth which should have been kept for the same reason. So unless every character list on Wikipedia is getting deleted, then a character list which spans dozens of novels should be kept. LA (T) @ 07:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems like the reason these articles exist is the author was trying to split up the list of Xanth characters by character types. I think trimming the list is a better idea. Not every character needs to be on it.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 00:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Xanth characters. A couple of these characters are likely important enough to include in the main character list. I can do the merge. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if anyone is going to search for magicians of xanth for these characters, so I think we should delete it outright. But the individual character names, if important enough, should become redirects.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 05:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 9 January 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.