Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Heap

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, not preformed by the closing admin, as the consensus in this debate is to merge. 山本一郎 (会話) 05:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Heap

Fictional characters with only in-universe information, no secondary sources or indication of real-world notability. Compare the Septimus Heap AfD. Huon (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep These Pages!! I have spent some time editing them and now the pages are both accurate and full of information. This series is a best seller and people should be able to find more out about the Characters!! Also if necessary i will edit the other pages to do with the magyk series so that they can stay here too. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by KayTee.BayBeeh.Xx (talk • contribs) Sep 14, 2008 — KayTee.BayBeeh.Xx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep or Merge into a character article for the series. A notable, bestselling and widely-reviewed book series should have some coverage of the chacters on Wikipedia. Unsure whether these particular characters are notable enough for individual articles or a single article covering them all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I've read part of the series and individual character articles are definitely not needed. I would even hesitate to suggest an list of characters outside of the main series article, though it might be needed because of the large number of characters. However, at this point the actual articles still need a lot of work just on primary content, so individual biographies and a list of characters are premature. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These unreferenced breakout articles fail WP:PLOT because they do not indicate any real-world significance of the fictional character biographies. I have trouble endorsing a merge or consolidated spinout at this point because the main article itself needs work to comply with WP:PLOT. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; they fail both Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (under Elements of fiction) and Wikipedia:Plot. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article on the series of books, Reviewers have aomplained about how many characters there are, and there do not seem to be sufficien secondary sources for most of them, besides the protagonist, Septimus Heap, who seems deserving of a stand-alone article, as I have argued at that AFD. Edison (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no linking to the real world at all, therefore no establishment of notability. From a search I can see no coverage of the characters. Nuttah (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article for the characters, as the usual solution. why bother bringing this to Afd in the first place when there is such an easy way to deal with them? DGG (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's nothing in those articles which can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. What content would you consider fit for merging? Huon (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also because it's generally quickly reverted by an over-eager editor. Mr. Absurd (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DGG, two of these were sent to AfD hours after creation, seems rather hasty. RMHED (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Starblind, DGG. Edward321 (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or merge the Description sections into Septimus Heap#Characters. All violate WP:NOT#PLOT, no evidence of WP:NOTABILITY for improvement, but if this book series really proves as popular as some news outlets claim, then give fans a main outlet (the series article) instead of dozens that can't fulfill minimum wikipedia content requirements. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is about a very popular series and characters which are popular. Even a movie is also coming on it by the Warner Brothers. So why the hell do you people want to delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas2186 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the book series is not under discussion, and per WP:N, popularity!=notability for the characters. Do you have any proof that the characters are individually notable? – sgeureka ^t•c 08:48, 16 September 2008 (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.