Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gharlane of Eddore (character)

: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 for failing PLOT and the GNG. In the future, any sourced analysis of the character (if found) can still be added to the articles of the works he appeared in. – sgeureka t•c 13:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

=[[:Gharlane of Eddore (character)]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Gharlane of Eddore (character)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gharlane_of_Eddore_(character) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Gharlane of Eddore (character)}})

Fictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. BEFORE shows nothing that's not in passing or a plot summary. Deprodded with rationale best summarized as WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Can we do better, please? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep "Can we do better please"? Yes, and that doesn't begin by just finding as many articles as possible to delete. Also, "not a shred of analysis" isn't true if you look in the Ellik book, which is at least noted here, if not used in any substantive way. That's one of the first (1960s) meta-commentary books on any fantasy or sf novel. Common enough today, but just that was rather exceptional back then. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doc Smith's writings may have been analyzed, but this particular character? I don't know, but I suspect not, and there's only one potential source put forward. I'm also going to nominate the related Innermost Circle of the All-Highest for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Fictional. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION - Jay (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails GNG. TTN (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.