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 and redirect to Crown of Stars (series). In regards to Jay's comment, my own practice is to delete an article and recreate it as a redirect, which helps prevent reverts. If there's a need to access a deleted article's history in the future, there are people who can provide it. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liathano[edit]

Liathano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fictional character with no claim of meeting WP:FICTION in article. I had redirected this article to the one on the series, as per WP:FICTION, but this was reverted by another editor. Rather than get into an edit war, I'd like a consensus on what to do. Fabrictramp (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. I've recently redirected Prince of Dogs and King's Dragon to the same article, it might be worth covering them in the same nom. they're all the creation of one user. I've left a talk page message explaining the various guidance on fictional works, concepts and characters. They're useful search terms, stick a ((R from related word)) on them once redirected. Hiding Talk 16:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Hiding Talk 16:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The redirection was an appropriate action for the article, and I support redirecting it again. I (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Reverting is the main reason why I think an AFD should never close as redirect. If we aren't keeping any content the only reason to keep the history is to allow some one to revert, which we don't want. Jay32183 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can think of a couple of reasons why we would want the history. Consensus can change and the GFDL. Reversion can be dealt with by people watching the pages, deletion should not be punishment, we aren't typically preventative on Wikipedia, and these are useful search terms. The issue of reversion, more to the point, isn't settled by deletion, which can be reverted through recreation. The solution to that is typically protection, which can also be applied to redirects. So I don't see any value in that argument for deletion. Hiding Talk 10:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability and a complete lack of real world information as required by WP:FICT. The article is essentially an extended plot summary - which Wikipedia is not.[[Guest9999 (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2007 (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.