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 Skulduggery Pleasant. MBisanz ^talk 04:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faceless One (Skulduggery Pleasant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This group of characters does not establish notability independent of Skulduggery Pleasant through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the characters. TTN (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:V as an article consisting entirely of plot summary with no references whatsoever and no assertion of notability. I also note what looks like some original research near the end ("it is known that...", "are clearly inspired by...", "may have been a homage to...", etc.). --IllaZilla (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Skulduggery Pleasant DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. These gods represent a major plot device and so need some coverage in the main article if not their own article. It also needs to be moved to Faceless Ones.--Beligaronia (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N & WP:NOT#PLOT. Eusebeus (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In this particular case, the main article has an almost equally full description of the characters & their role. It is possible that as further vols. in the series get published, there may be need to divide the article, but I do not see any case for it yet. I do not think a redirect is appropriate because the name of the group is not distinctive--so non-distinctive that it had to be qualified by the name of the book to be meaningful. DGG (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's qualified by the name of the book because there is a group called the Faceless Ones in another work of fiction. I tried creating it as "Faceless One" and was taken to a different article. Oh and for the time being I'm for a redirect. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. No need for a redirect here either .DGG (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa Mr. Daley, this isn't Chicago, you only get to !vote once ;) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Skulduggery Pleasant; no real preference between those two, but this article doesn't meet our inclusion policies as it is, as argued by the users above. Terraxos (talk) 03:21, 18 November 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.