Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santangelo family

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 all others to Santangelo family. I will not perform the merge, since there was serious disagreement over the need of any merge of the currently available material. It is all still in the history, so if anyone wants to merge, they are free to do so. If anyone recreates any of these articles (without significant imporvements, especially in independent sourcing), I suggest a "speedy G4" redirection. Fram (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santangelo family

This article is not needed here. It is non-notable, plain and simple. It has no reason to be here. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are either stubbed, simply one sentence, or assert no notability as well. ALL of these pages don't need to be here!!:

ZeroGiga (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:FICTION. There is no notablitity whatsoever with these people. Tavix (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the above shortcut is not approved as an actual guideline and may even be marked as historical. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the individual character articles into the article on the family. The books are notable enough to have articles on individual ones, but since they seem to be a connected series, the articles on the characters will pull the information together in a helpful way. I doubt the books are so notable that articles on the individual major characters are justified, but a combination article with redirects is the way to go. Wikipedia should provide the necessary information so that if one looks for a fictional character, one finds the information. That's the purpose of an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG who pretty much summed it up. JuJube (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I googled some of the names at random to look for sources; very few hits on all and no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I find unlikely such coverage exists in print media or specialty databases that I do not have access to. As far as I can tell, these are merely non-notable characters in a not particularly notable book series by a not particularly notable author. By that I mean they are not the type of cultural icons that can stand in an article on their own. Frankly, they don't seem to even be worthy of inclusion on a list somewhere. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to The Santangelo Novels - lack of significant coverage, but plausible search terms. PhilKnight (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them. They are not independently covered within reliable sources (or as a whole), so they do not require extended coverage. The main articles can easily cover them. TTN (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If they can be covered in another atricle than we merge and redirect without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and create redirects to The Santangelo Novels, where this topic can be covered in the appropriate depth. These botched articles are generally unsourced and demonstrate no individual notability. Sandstein 07:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per DGG, JuJube, PhilKnight.John Z (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All to combined character list as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to think my compromise here is the best way of handling these cases--it should satisfy those who think the material should be covered and also those who think they are not appropriate for separate articles.DGG (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2008 (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.