Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinhil Haldane

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 redirect to House of Haldane (fictional). Any useful content may be merged from the page history at editorial discretion, should that page survive its current AfD; if not, the redirect would be simply deleted along with it. T. Canens (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cinhil Haldane (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)

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to House of Haldane (fictional). Maybe that should go in the long term too, but while it exists... Josh Milburn (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unconvincing nomination. Andrew D. (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This does not address the nomination and should be discounted as such. TTN (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It addresses the nomination directly. It's awful. Andrew D. (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic is either notable or not notable. I doubt a laundry list of WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:NOTPLOT would change anything in your eyes. If you fail to address that assertion, you have no argument and thus your opinion should be discounted. TTN (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An element from a fictional series spanning a score of books and running for nearly 50 years. Even a cursory review of ISFDB listings would show a significant quantity of reviews and criticism of the series. There's even running, right now at tor.com, an extensive analysis of the series and its characters (more than a year of weekly installments, and not even half done!) by the notable writer/academic Judith Tarr, which itself cites commentary on the series by Ursula LeGuin. Since the nominator has admitted their practice of noncompliance with WP:BEFORE, their opinion should be given little or no weight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, at best the characters should all be merged into a list of short biographies, they don't need a stand alone article. Longevitydude (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominations should explain why an article is not notable. If more detail is provided, I will happily reconsider my vote. 1292simon (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If a topic doesn't have sources and nobody can provide sources, it fails WP:N. I don't know if there is much more that can be said. TTN (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication of notability. None of the Keep arguments address policy--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 23:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment (continued from above) We should be looking at the potential for the article, not its current content. To provide some direction for the AfD process, I suggest the nomination should propose how WP:NOTPLOT applies (I think Andrew D is implying similar). 1292simon (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Regardless of whether it can be better written, it's still not notable.Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 00:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to House of Haldane (fictional). I searched "Cinhil" on Google Books and found that, other than references to Kurtz's books themselves, the listed items are either (i) Kurtz talking about her character in interviews or (ii) entries in various encyclopedias of fantasy fiction. In the latter cases, the entries appear to be merely non-substantive re-iteration of in-universe details. In all, I found nothing to suggest that this character has been the subject of substantial third-party coverage (such as has been accorded to, say, Superman or Sherlock Holmes). NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per the above. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:NOTPLOT; this is only plot summary and cites no third-party sources; notability is not inherited from the series; a merger is inappropriate because the merge target has the same problems and I am also nominating it for deletion.  Sandstein  14:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fancruft created a decade ago and still lacking a single source. Articles about fictional characters require evidence of having been discussed in reliable secondary sources. The fact that a character is in a series of novels ≠ notability. Dr. Watson and Nancy Drew are good examples.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:36, 29 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.