Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stand (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure)

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 merge to JoJo's Bizarre Adventure. Black Kite 18:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stand (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure)[edit]

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

This article fails to provide any independent references and fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. A search for reliable sources covering this topic have returned with nothing, including this search. So by WP:N, WP:V and WP:OR this fails. Wikipedia isn't a collection of indiscriminate information. Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information to the seven articles on the respective sub-series. Some stands could be considered key characters in their own right, and should be on the character list in the appropriate article. Most are probably minor characters appearing in less than one volume of the series as a whole. (Note: Given the immensely length of the series, the project eventually decided that splitting content into seven articles was the most logical way to manage it; very little cleanup has been done on any of the articles related to the series, and all of them could stand some pruning.) Doceirias (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if possible, or, if there is too much information to merge, keep as a "Main article:". This is pretty clearly "extra" information about a notable series that is not part of the main article. —siro χ o 02:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing merge or keep? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 14:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copy the relevant information as needed to the various sub-series articles and character lists -- is a relevant attribute of the characters who have them -- and then delete. As a concept on its own, aside from the lead, it is not stand-alone-article material and isn[t relevant grouping. Ideally, this should then be redirected somewhere, but Wikipedia is not, to put it mildly, set up to handle merging information into multiple targets -- making this a good example of how mechanics can trump policies-and-procedures. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If any information is copied from this article to others, it cannot be deleted without violating the GFDL/Creative Commons licenses. This goes beyond policies and guidelines and has real potential legal ramifications. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, redirect this article to the main Jojo's Bizarre Adventure page, which should have at least some mention of the Stand concept anyway. Doceirias (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Making the redirect to the main article makes sense, for just that reason. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Pretty much what Doceirias and Quasirandom said. Erigu (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search has some promising results. Cnet's review says:

"The linchpin of the storyline is the relationship between the main characters and their "stands." Stands are psychic partners that enhance the characters' own physical powers and are something akin to guardian angels."

It is quite an important part of the story, the series not existing without them. Plenty of coverage is given to them in the 58 Google news results [1] Dream Focus 19:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is important to the story, but the topic itself has not been the subject of significant coverage. It isn't necessary to have a list of every aspect of stand in order to understand the subject, this could be sufficiently explained in the main article without going into so much detail. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and already is.Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heavily reduce content to concise and relevant details and Merge other related articles.Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2010 (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.