Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarlaxle (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 22:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jarlaxle[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. As part of the Drizzt series, there should be much more potential than many of the other articles, but I'm not seeing anything relevant myself. TTN (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I agree that there should be much more potential than many of the other articles, and I believe they will be found. If Keep is not the desired outcome, then I would see a merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters rather than deletion. BOZ (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree about potential. He's clearly appeared in a lot of media, is clearly of some interest to fans, and has even been mentioned in some academic work on role-playing. I'm on the fence right now, leaning towards merging into an appropriate list somewhere. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is my understanding that it is still the Wikipedia consensus that the major characters in novels or novel series are inherently notable. Jarlaxle is not a lead ("main") character in the novel series, but he is a major one.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no that has never even been a thing. Everything has to independently establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This would suggest otherwise.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean to accomplish by showing some random guy's misguided comments? You'd have a point if that AfD ended as "Keep, character is obviously notable", but the end result was no consensus. TTN (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean to accomplish is the following: to establish that there is a precedent for keeping (or at the very least, not deleting) articles on fictional characters appearing in novels or novel series, when those characters are observably "major" characters. I will point out that the AFD referenced above is for a character article of a major character in the same series as Jarlaxle; and that said article was subsequently AFD'd a second time, where it was unanimously kept - and further unanimously kept after a subsequent deletion review. This suggests to me that while the author of the above linked comment may indeed have been "some random guy", he was not, evidently, misguided.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is not and has never been a precedent of any kind. The fact that a similar article was kept has no bearing on this one. While I agree that this article should have potential as a major character in a long running series, the reality is that it does not currently establish notability and nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary. Your argument has no basis in guidelines or policies. TTN (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vulcan's Forge. Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2016 (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.