Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centaur family of Xanth

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. The one "keep" does not address the policy-based reasons advanced for deletion. Sandstein 09:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centaur family of Xanth

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

This topic does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Much like my response in the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goblin family of Xanth, this is just a lot of unsourced fancruft on some minor fictional characters. And, much like that article, I don't think that it should be used as a redirect, as I don't believe the term "Centaur Family of Xanth" was a term used before this article, and the only results coming from searching that phrase only come from mirrors and reprints of this article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are around 40 novels in the Xanth series and many characters in this family tree have been major characters in the novels. I was not around to save Goblin family of Xanth which should have been kept for the same reason. So unless every fictional family tree on Wikipedia is getting deleted, then a family tree which spans dozens of novels should be kept. Keeping track of the relationships in the Xanth series is easier with family trees. LA (T) @ 19:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not Wikipedia's job to keep track of fictional family trees without reliable sources backing up why the information presented within has notability outside of the fictional universe they exist in. Without them, they are nothing more than WP:CRUFT and belong on Wikias, not Wikipedia. So, unless there are reliable sources backing up why this entire family is notable enough to sustain an article, there is no policy-based argument for keeping it. And no, not every fictional family tree needs to be deleted, just the ones that have no sources that cause it to meet the requirements of the WP:GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a notable concept. It is not mentioned in-depth as a family by reliable sources. We don't have non-notable family articles like this for real people, let alone imaginary ones.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 01:59, 2 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.