Deletion of Cayke

Comment: None of the characters meet the criteria of the |general notability guideline, as none has significant coverage in #Reliable_sources_and_other_principles|reliable third-party sources. Additionally, most of the articles are |plot-only descriptions of fictional works
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:V||WP:PLOT)

Comment: Also, |notability is not inherited, so the fact that they are major characters in notable books is irrelevant. They must have notability independent of and have the outside sources to back it up. かんぱい
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT)

Comment: The nominator seems to have arrived at this list by consulting his |feelings.  When we look at the actual evidence, we find that these characters are documented in works such as ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ohXRAAAAMAAJ Who's who in Oz'', ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ppEFuqS9YsEC Oz in perspective'' and ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LkBaAAAAMAAJ Oz and beyond''.  They are therefore notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV)

Comment: Character articles must be held to stringent standards. If they don't have the references to meet  and don't have any real-word creation and reception info, then we don't work like Wikia; we get rid of those that don't meet our criteria. かんぱい
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: The policy Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources|Wikipedia:No original research - plot permits a Wikipedian editor to describe a fictional character's plot role by citing passages from the fictional material. Thus, unlike non-fiction material, the fictional material itself is a source material that passes  and contributes to worthy of notice analysis for .  requires that more than just the primary source be available as material for the article. In each of the listed articles, material from the Oz compendia is available to provide secondary source material to meet . In regards to , the collective of (i) the fictional material itself (due to the policy Wikipedia:No original research - plot) plus (ii) the likelihood of other available reliable source material need only be more than a trivial mention to meet . Here, many of the articles have yet to include material from the Oz compendia and, unlike what is asserted in the nomination, others cite secondary source material that is not the Oz compendia. In addition, many of the listed articles have yet to fully make use of the fictional material series itself as a source material or the secondary sources cited above by  Colonel Warden. Further, the likelihood of additional source material for each of the listed articles is very strong in view of the fact that the series "is not only notable, but is internationally famous; and among the famous ones, it would be among the most famous" per DGG above. Even if it now is not in the articles, this presently existing source material clearly is sufficient to meet  and will provide plenty of material for these articles to grow over time. Not only are the stand-alone article sufficient to meet  with a prospect for expansion, they are appropriate for the reasons listed above. '''The delete/merge position has multiple flaws.''' First, it judges notability based on the state of the article itself rather than a likelihood of source material available for the article.  In addition, there is no requirement that each fictional character be the main topic of the Baum series. Further, Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources| has long provided a fictional material exception to the source material that may be used in determining GNG for topics on fiction. The secondary source Oz compendia, those listed above by Colonel Warden, and the DGG famous among the famous observation means that all of the listed articles can be well more than primary source plot-only descriptions of fictional works. (I didn't find any  plot-only description articles and no one in this AfD has listed any). The nomination itself is fatally flawed because the listed articles are not similarly situated when it comes to the reasons given for the nomination. This has cause confusion among those trying to give a reason to merge or delete. In regards to merge, each article needs to be individually evaluated to determine whether List of Oz characters or some other target article would be a more appropriate article. No one has presented any reasonable analysis as to why List of Oz characters or some other target article would be a more appropriate article. The merge and delete positions are weak
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:GNG||WP:PLOT||WP:NOT||WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:N||WP:GNG)

Comment: Most of these, like previously stated, are plot-only permastubs. For a character to be notable for an article, there must be some real world content. Somebody shouldn't be able to just read a book, and then write an article about the character. There must be interviews on development, reception of their role, or overall insight from |reliable sources
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)