Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rozen Maiden characters (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 no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 02:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rozen Maiden characters[edit]

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

No notability. The notable characters have been effectively merged into the main article. Three years has passed since my last nomination, and of course nothing has been done to improve this article. All of the "good writing" here were taken from the main article when Ryulong restored the article from a redirect in his opposition to having romajis placed in footnotes. This AFD needs eyes outside of A/M project which contains loads of terrible and non-notable character lists. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The purpose of having a subarticle is to detail info of the characters that are otherwise wasting too much space on the main article. There is a total of three anime adaptions and two manga series. There is hardly enough space to merge all relevant info of the characters into the main article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any convincing arguments here, this character list is an extension of the plot that otherwise couldn't fit on the main page. There are characters for example that are anime/manga only. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my opinion to Delete, Dragon did a great job at condensing the characters into the main article here. Lets face it... the article IS all WP:OR meaning that even if it is recreated the info would still be re-added in another shape or form. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I request that the nominee be barred from starting a 3rd AFD of this subarticle if the result is KEEP. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith here, I may disagree with the deletion but do not think it is in malice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I implore you to check the archive of the previous AFD one more time. Weren't you a participant on the 1st AFD as well? Clearly, I don't think the nominee understands that the concensus for this AFD is not going to be different than the first one. In short, he is wasting everyone's time when there are much more articles out there that have way more grounds for deletion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way you're counting the media adaptation sequels as separate medias to justify the existence of this list is incorrect. Asides from that, only one "anime only" character is notable enough to be kept in the character list. You haven't dealt with enough non-notable fictional character lists to see how the merge is beneficial; like how I was able to take only the main characters from List of The Irregular at Magic High School characters (111 kb of text), and placed it within The Irregular at Magic High School. Are you an expert on the series, do you know the plot well enough to know what characters should be kept or not? Have you seen the history when Ryulong just overturned the consensus of February 2014? I am free to nominate this article for AFD since much time has passed; this is not disruptive and I am doing this to improve the overall quality of the Rozen Maiden articles. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 18:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand that regardless of what justification you might have had, this nomination will turn out to be exactly like it was from 3 years ago. Good luck with trying to waste space. Nobody's gonna buy that. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you are so dedicated in "improving" the content, you might as well just copy whatever edits you made on the main page into the subarticle. After all, that is what subarticles are for. Instead, you just chose to waste even more time in making an AFD that is 99% guaranteed to fail, based on the last nomination. If you failed to delete it last time, you will surely fail this time, too. It's common sense. Only push for a 2nd AFD if you feel that the arguments presented in the previous AFD were weak and irrelevant, like these nominations, for instance. Bear in mind, most of us do not agree with your idea of "improvement", so I suggest that you withdraw this AFD to save yourself from embarrassment. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh, tone down the aggression Sk8erPrince, we're all here to work together on an encyclopedia, not yell at each other. Consensus can change and three years is plenty of time for a re-nomination. On the other hand, you should take your own advice with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takaya Hashi (2nd nomination), where you nominated an article two days after the last one failed. Opencooper (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It did not fail. No consensus is an unacceptable outcome, especially if there's barely any participation to begin with. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DragonZero is correct when they say that eyes outside WP:A&M are needed. Offshoot articles might be a precedent, but like here they quickly devolve into dumping grounds for original research. One thing that used to happen in the past was that we had "X in popular culture" articles because the authors of the main articles would rather not deal with such content. However, that is what is needed and here DragonZero has merged any usable information on the main characters into the parent article. While main characters of series are often notable, side characters usually lack any coverage to write about them without devoting to original research or synthesis. This is the case here. Lastly we should remember why articles are split off in the first place: because of size; the content of this article would have been deleted in the main article because it is OR, or else the article would have never gotten to GA. Opencooper (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I think it's something our project (A&M) should debate further and thoroughly (some time ago I had a brief debate with TheFarix for the sake of record [1], [2]). Most of these lists are just "let's get rid of content we don't want in the main page". Our policy on stand-alone lists says "being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines." I think most lists are written in a completely WP:IN-U perspective and don't comply with WP:WAF#Accuracy and appropriate weight as it can be said they are "disproportionately long plot summaries" about characters. To justify a stand-alone list I think there should be significant content to create a "conception" and a "reception" section so it will be balanced between in-universe and out-universe content (ex. here and here). And to justify the inclusion of a character in the list it should be considered the screen time the character has within the series or if the part it plays within the series is important. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator put some character information into the main article early last year. [3] Then on the day he reverted someone's attempt to remove it three times, he decides to nominate this article for deletion, since the argument made in the edit summaries by the other guy was that all the information should just be linked to here. That is what is normally done. Dream Focus 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Characters were there since Rozen Maiden existed in my Sandbox (2013). [4] Nothing was taken from the list because it was all OR. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list article was created on March 2007 [5] Characters were added to the main article in one of the first edits there on May 2005. [6] As the article got larger, people just shifted the character list to a separate article is as common. A character section seems to have been added and removed from the main article at various times by different people over the years. Dream Focus 06:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So let's settle this dispute once and for all and decide whether or not it's ultimately the best to keep this article and fix it, or merge it with the main article. Reverting edits like this is extremely tiresome, and honestly, I just want to get it over with already. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not establish notability, so it has no reason to exist at this time. TTN (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonable WP:SS breakout of characters from a notable fictional franchise. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gabriel Yuji's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fancruft, no third-party sources, in-universe content only (WP:NOTPLOT). Sandstein 22:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just want to remind editors that every "list of characters in x series" is a different case. These articles should be handled on a singular basis. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep, and the fact that "no third-party sources" is being used as a legitimate deletion rationale here leads me to suspect that somehow everyone was too lazy to WP:BEFORE when !voting. Found in just a 5-minute Google search: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. There's definitely more out there, including Japanese sources, and the vast majority of anime reviews also include analysis on the characters. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing sources: Most of those links are merchandise such as dolls. This is a classic for anime/manga characters. Even though the characters of Tales of Graces also have merchandise, it's not notable enough to establish their creation. Those two character polls you listed were from ANN readers, and the second is from the streets of Akihabara. These polls were not from significant sources, and is something I've left our of various articles such as No Game No Life (It's been a while but I believe there were also street polls with the characters). Instead, it's better to focus on big polls in Japan, such as those hosted by TV networks or those yearly polls by Animage??? (What is it called again?) and Kono Light Novel ga Sugoi!. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise helps establish notability as it demonstrates that the character has achieved real-world popularity and recognition, as opposed to just in-universe mentions. While the polls may not be from a "significant" source, it was reported upon by Anime News Network, a WP:RS. All RS coverage counts towards notability (some a bit more than others), you can't just pick-and-choose what is usable and what isn't. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to userfy the article to work on it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in fixing up the article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly Weak Keep I almost always vote to keep lists of characters from notable fiction franchises as I think the benefits are clear both for readers and the encyclopedia. This one is a little less clear as the main characters are adequately summarised on the main article. Still, I think deleting this would not benefit the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to the main article's Characters section. Firstly, I've been through numerous character list AfDs like this. I first noticed how the main article already has a very large section for the characters: Rozen Maiden#Characters. That alone would probably be reason enough to delete. Then add to that the classic character list crux: the list has almost no sourcing. That too is usually enough for deletion. Thirdly, like mentioned, the depictions written are heavily plot and best fit for a fan wikia like always. Adding to the insult is the fact that there actually exists a comprehensive fan wikia with very detailed character bios. I've never seen a character list begging to be deleted more than this one. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean from an archivist's point of view, the information is all there at the fan wikia. If someone wants to find out about the characters or just googles them randomly, they'll find the comphrehensive fan wikia articles. In fact, our descriptions are substandard in comparison. We are doing a disservice to the people with our descriptions and list. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC
- Changed vote to redirect, as there of course was the section listing the characters at the main article that the term should redirect to. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main article characters section. All the character lists publicized by the anime focus on the 9 or so main characters already mentioned, not the 20-30 possible ones like some series publicize. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Looking at the entries for individual characters, most of the ones not already covered on the parent article seem to be struggling to show their importance. Generally I'm in favour of separate character lists but in this case there doesn't seem to be any compelling content reasons for a separate article based on the text of the article. There is always the scope for improvement of course, but let's be honest character lists have never been a priority and by and large never attract any serious attention from experienced editors. I'm not against recreation if an editor can prove it's merits, but experience suggests that it won't happen.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:05, 13 November 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.