Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the Mutacene Chronicles characters

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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Mutacene Chronicles characters

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletable under WP:LC. The underlying fiction is non-notable. RJ (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, in that the book has a popular underground following, and while it may not be notable to the masses as yet, it could be the next Twilight or Harry Potter series. To consider the first book of a multiple book series as non-notable before it is able to achieve the numerous followers it is capable of is irresponsible to those who already enjoy it. Also, Wikipedia is a source for information on all matters, and this book / list of characters is existent enough to warrant a page, small as it may be. There are many other books here the masses have not heard of, some the masses may never hear of, but their place on Wikipedia is cemented, as should this series be. DekkanRhee (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. See WP:BALL. When you say, "To consider the first book of a multiple book series as non-notable before it is able to achieve the numerous followers it is capable of is irresponsible to those who already enjoy it." We cannot and should not predict the future on Wikipedia. Be careful of WP:AD. An article on Wikipedia should not be thought of promoting the series but come naturally as a result of notability. I would like an article on the Mutacene Chronicles itself before a listing all the characters. NOVA: The Seven should be looked at for AfD. What you need most are secondary citations and awards to prove notabilty. From pre-emptory internet searches, I have been unable to find such proof. Providing reputable sources as evidence of notability would help to keep these articles. RJ (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball? Really? The page is not speculating, it states verifiable fact (about the fiction of the book.) This series (which is still on the first novel) looks to be very good if the initial book is any indication. I know at least a dozen people who have read it in my local area, and found someone online 400 miles away who is familiar with it as well. The book may still be 'underground' but unless you are a part of the comic book fandom that followers of the book belong to, you could not understand the importance of the books. The first book transcends stereotypes and combines the mediums of novel and comic book, unlike graphic novels, in a completely written form. If that isn't notable, I don't know what is. DekkanRhee (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is an unsourced collection of fan trivia. Reyk _YO! 22:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created out of thin air, a verifiable definition is needed to comply with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the Amazon link in NOVA: The Seven, the first part of this series, it was published using Amazon's self-publishing service CreateSpace, what some uncharitably refer to as vanity publishing. There are no apparent reliable secondary sources covering the book in detail, needed to comply with WikiPedia's notability guideline, so any sub-articles are in the same boat by default. Someone another 09:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Definitely cruft. The book itself spectacularly fails WP:BK and WP:GNG, and its article has now been listed at AfD as well. Even if the book's article survives AfD, said article isn't large enough to require the character list to be broken out anyway. --Darkwind (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listing fictional characters from an unnotable book is not needed. Clubmarx (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2010 (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.