Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genar-Hofoen

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 to Excession. Michig (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genar-Hofoen

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

Other articles devoted to single characters from the Culture series have been merged with the pages devoted to their novel (specifically, those for Bora Horza Gorbuchul and Perosteck Balveda have been merged to Consider Phlebas), but they had significantly more content. As this page stands, I don't think that it could contribute more than a couple lines to that article. It's far too short, not referenced, and written entirely in-universe. Smith(talk) 20:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merge? Or not even worth doing so? --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 20:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it were to be merged, I reckon the best way to so would be to have a characters section in Excession; doing so would require a lot more than just this one character. Smith(talk) 21:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was ready to vote to delete, but it looks like there's some coverage in Google Books: [1] and [2]. I don't know if this is enough to write an article, or if this article should be merged and sources I found cited in the main article on the book. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but both of those cases seem to be plot summaries of the novel, and include the character's name in that regard without adding substantive analysis or, indeed, any other information that could realistically be added to the article. Smith(talk) 11:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Allthefoxes and NinjaRobotPirate: Any thoughts on a vote?

Redirect to Excession. No independent notability, not enough content for a merge. Kolbasz (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps and redirect if needed as this may be applicable for the book, but it seems questionably notable and improvable as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 13 January 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.