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. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 02:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Mundanes in Xanth

Mundanes in Xanth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 19:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 19:34, 2 January 2017 (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) @ 07:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unsourced fancruft on a bunch of minor fictional characters. Like the other Xanth articles on AFD, the title of the article seems to have been invented by the article creator, thus Deletion is the most appropriate action as it is not a valid search term. 64.183.45.226 ( talk) 22:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete It seems like the reason these articles exist is the author was trying to split up the list of Xanth characters by character types. I think trimming the list is a better idea. Not every character needs to be on it.-- Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 00:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete From the length of the entries, it seems like these are not major characters so there is no reason to merge the information into a central character list. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 01:38, 7 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.