List of minor characters in Xena: Warrior Princess

List of minor characters in Xena: Warrior Princess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

An list of unnotable characters that all fail WP:FICT on their own, and that fail the basic guidelines for mentioning about the show. Being minor characters who mostly appear in single episodes, this list is nothing but trivia and an indiscriminate collection of characters that aren't important enough to cover in the main character list. Per the TV MOS, we do NOT mention or list every last character to make a 1-2 episode list appearance in a television series. This is not the Xenaverse wiki and such Xena cruft needs to be deleted (with transwiki, as I'm sure there really is a Xena wiki). Collectonian (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Hercules and Xena characters and trim greatly. 70.55.84.89 (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's a perfectly acceptable sub-article. "Xena cruft" is not a valid reason for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being unnotable is. This is not the Xena directory. Collectonian (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Five pillars of what Wikipedia is, i.e. not paper and specialized. Thus, this encyclopedic article of notable and verifiable characters is consistent with a specialized enycclopedia on Xena. No benefit to our project or the collection of human knowledge to lose this article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A specialised encyclopedia would still contain sourced real-world analysis, not excessive plot detail. This article isn't consistent with that. The benefit to our project of losing this information is explained at WP:IINFO. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no secondary sources and no sourced assertion of notability; fails WP:N. The characters are, by the article title, 'minor' - so this isn't a valid spinout, even if that section of WP:FICT were undisputed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually plenty of published sources exist so it is a valid spinout and notable. Let's give our editors time and encouragment in converting these sources into references for this encyclopedic article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If sources exist, add them to the article and I'll change my vote. Until you do, it fails WP:N and should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Instead unconstructively telling others to do so, why not help out and add some sources yourself? In any case it already passes WP:N and should be kept. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Weak because I am not able to see that each of these characters is in fact discussed in the book about the series which Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles pointed out, "Xena Warrior Princess: Complete Illustrated Companion" by K. Stoddard Hayes. In its 240 pages such a book probably discusses major and many minor characters, so it is a secondary published source for those minor characters it in fact discusses. This supplements the actual episodes which are primary sources and less convincing. A list is far, far preferable to having a stub article about each minor character, and merging the list into the main Xena article would probably tend to make it too long. The WP:N requirement for substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources does not prevent less notable things or characters being included in articles, as long as the articles themselves are about notable things. Edison (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What is notable about the minor, one time appearance of a person in Xena? The notability of the series is not inherited by its sub-articles. Collectively the major characters of the series are notable. Collectively, the episodes are notable. Collectively, a bunch of one-time, minor characters are not notable. Collectonian (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is inherited. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Minor characters in a major series should be handled in a list fashion such as this, so long as the content is verifiable. Notability is established with reference to the series, because this is effectively a break-out article from the main article on Xena. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite. To be a break-out article, the content would have to be acceptable in the main content except for size issues. The TV MOS specifically notes that only major characters should be listed. So this list would never have been acceptable in the main article, even without the size issues, so it is not a break-out article. Collectonian (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It satisfies Wikipedia:Lists. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ...but not WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any problems there. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:DEL#REASON. Articles on non-notable topics should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't apply as it's been established as a notable topic. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, "minor characters in Xena" is not established; you'd need sources for that. If you want to claim this is exempt from notability under the spinouts clause, then I'd point out that (a) that's hotly disputed, and (b) as Collectonian points out, it would be unacceptable in the main article, so it's unacceptable here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That so many believe the article should be kept demonstrates that there is some notability here. Spinout clauses are not the only policies or guidelines lacking consensus. If nothing else, removing the article that is clearly notable to a respectable segment of good faith contributors does not in any way benefit our project, but only alienates those contributors and readers. We are a comprehensive paperless encyclopedia. We should only be picky about deleting hoaxes, how-to-guides, personal attacks, and copywright violations. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a vote. Keep votes don't establish notability, sources do. You may have your own opinions about what we should delete, but consensus is with WP:N, WP:IINFO and WP:DEL. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Aspects of those items unfortunately do not have consensus. Delete votes do not convince anyone that notability does not exist, the appearances of these characters in hundreds of published books, DVDs, and more do. You may have your own opinions about what you personally don't like, but consensus is that list of characters are perfectly accpetable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're confusing consensus and your own opinion again. Lists of minor characters don't have consensus support. There's currently some debate about the extent to which lists of major characters do; but that's not relevant here. Your amazon link only serves to list books about Xena. In order to establish that "minor characters in Xena" is a notable topic, you need to add references to the article which point to coverage specifically of minor characters. Until you do, the article fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing to confuse as consensus is clearly that this article is relevant. Obviously minor characters in Xena appear in both books and the show and thus the articles passes WP:N. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep good organization of less notable Xena characters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a reason for it to be done here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although a merge discussion may be appropriate, this list contains important information that is necessary to understand the series. Ursasapien (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not it's useful isn't a reason to keep it. There's no coverage here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's not reason to delete it, though. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary, the fact that it fails WP:N is ample reason; the nominator provides several more. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've seen far more compelling reasons to keep, though. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Care to point them out? Given that usefulness isn't one, I haven't seen any yet. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have seen no compelling reasons to delete. Compelling reasons to keep: verifiable, per five pillars (consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Xena, satisfies List guideline, discriminate list, organized list, interesting to readers and therefore potential contributors and donators to our project, helps fulfill the goal of cataloging the sum total of human knowledges, does not fail any policies, Wikipedia does not have a deadline, Wikipedia is not clean up, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient. A specialised encyclopedia is still not indiscriminate. The list guidelines are about content, not deletion. Interest is not a readon. Helpful is not a reason. "does not fail any policies" is just plain false (WP:N), the other two aren't reasons. WP:N is a reason, per WP:DEL#REASON. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, and this list is discriminate. A mis or limited interpretation of N is NOT a sufficient reason. Plus, if all else fails, we have Ignore All Rules, as deleting this article does not benefit our project in any way and if anything would only be a detriment to Wikipedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The article contradicts you in its title; it's a list of "minor characters" - how much more indiscriminate can you get? WP:N is pretty straightforward, and comes out of WP:V and WP:IINFO. Either you have sources, or you fail WP:N. That's not interpretation, it's literal reading. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The article passes all of these guidelines as it has already been proven that sufficient sources exist. It is a list of a specific class of characters for a specific franchise. How much discriminate can you get? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; verifiable. Yes, I know that an encyclopedia should just be about how people kill each other because actually having articles on culture just encourages those damn dirty hippies, but Wikipedia isn't paper, and we actually do have room for articles on verifiable subjects that have large fandoms.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Verifiable, perhaps, but not notable. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, and sourced real-world analysis is required. It's utterly absent from this article.
    • The article is notable and is a discriminate list. If we have sources, then we should be able to add additional analysis over time. We do not have a deadline and we've only been around for a few years. There's no urgency. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's non-notable because there's no sourced coverage. That's what is required for notability; please read WP:N instead of making up your own rules. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually it is notable because of the existence of widespread sourced coverage. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • So add that coverage to the article now, or ask for it to be userified and add it after the deletion. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are welcome to help out and sources to the article rather than just tell others to do so. The article is not going to be deleted as no logical reason for doing so has been presented. I cannot imagine these books in particularl] containing information that could not be used to improve this article. Because we know published sources do indeed exist, let's give editors a reasonable amount of time to locate or purchases these books to in fact mine them for what they can. We do not have a deadline here; once we've established that an article can be made and published sources do exist, we then can take our time making the best article we can. There is no rush. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • That isn't how it works. You are the only one claiming that those books clearly establish notability. That has been questioned. You, the claimer, must prove it, not the people questioning it. If you want to say the minor characters in Xena are "clearly notable" then YOU must prove it. Right now, there is not a shread of evidence and pointing to a bunch of books on Xena as a whole does not prove the notability of THIS list. It only speaks to the show's notability as a whole, not the show's minor and one-episode characters. You need to point to SIGNIFICANT coverage of the minor characters in reliable sources that are not produced by the show itself to establish the topic as notable. Collectonian (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • • Yes, it is how it works. We are a colloborative enterprise attempting to catalog the sum total of human knowledge. The books unquestionably establish notability. I can hold a bananna in front of someone and say "here's a bannana" and if someone continues to question that it exists, there's not much more than needs to be done to prove it to them. The article is a subarticle of a larger topic with coverage in significant reliable sources. It takes time to go through these sources to finish building an article, but Wikipedia 1) is a work in progress and 2) does not have a deadline. Because we know sources exist that can be built to finish fleshing in the article, there is no reason why the article should not continue to exist so that editors can easily continue to build it up. Wikipedia gains absolutely nothing from removing the article. We could however insult editors and readers and donors by deleting it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]