Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Haré+Guu characters
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Without prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Haré+Guu characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, unreferenced fancruft list, violating WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:GNG. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge. Character descriptions are a necessary part of coverage of any notable serial fiction. GNG is satisfied by the notability of the series, the discriminate criteria is characters from that series, and at a minimum the series itself is an appropriate source for straightforward descriptions. All of which leaves us with this being at most a merger candidate purely under WP:PLOT and WP:SIZE considerations, and therefore per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE not a proper deletion candidate. postdlf (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NRVE: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". The notability of the series does NOT satisfy GNG for this article. Please also read WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources", thus the series itself isn't an appropriate source if the article is based only on it. And of course the list is indiscriminate because there is no external source indicating why all these characters are being covered on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folken de Fanel (talk • contribs)
- See comment below re: splitting. You'd do better to focus on trimming and merging this back to the main article. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've explained, I don't think there is anything to merge as plot on character by character basis is likely to be identical to plot in general.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See comment below re: splitting. You'd do better to focus on trimming and merging this back to the main article. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NRVE: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". The notability of the series does NOT satisfy GNG for this article. Please also read WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources", thus the series itself isn't an appropriate source if the article is based only on it. And of course the list is indiscriminate because there is no external source indicating why all these characters are being covered on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folken de Fanel (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I made this article as a split off from the main as placing it in the Main article would be a mess. Haré+Guu as it is needs major work done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Split articles are not exempted from meeting the GNG, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. You don't give a valid policy-based justification for your keep recommendation, it's likely to be ignored.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Au contraire. It is "AVOIDSPLIT", not a prohibition but a rule of thumb to follow at least for as long as is feasible. The qualifying language makes this clear (WP:SIZE is clear on this, as is broad practice and consensus and past AFDs regarding character lists or episode lists. If the content cannot be trimmed down enough to not be unwieldy in the main article, it is split. Do you think it is uncommon for AFDs to keep splitoffs that do not independently satisfy the GNG? postdlf (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IINFO and WP:NOTPLOT are not just "rules of thumb to follow as long as is feasible". WP:AVOIDSPLIT directly depends on these two policies. A split article is still an article, thus has to meet all the usual policies and guidelines, and if it doesn't, then it is deleted or merged back, depending on the context. I haven't seen a broad consensus regarding character lists, some get deleted, some don't, and per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale", meaning that editors can't just decide that character lists are exempted from not being plot dumps. If plot summaries are too long to fit in one section of the main article, the solution is not to split plot elements into seperate articles, but to trim the amount of plot you're gonna cover in the main article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Au contraire. It is "AVOIDSPLIT", not a prohibition but a rule of thumb to follow at least for as long as is feasible. The qualifying language makes this clear (WP:SIZE is clear on this, as is broad practice and consensus and past AFDs regarding character lists or episode lists. If the content cannot be trimmed down enough to not be unwieldy in the main article, it is split. Do you think it is uncommon for AFDs to keep splitoffs that do not independently satisfy the GNG? postdlf (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Split articles are not exempted from meeting the GNG, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. You don't give a valid policy-based justification for your keep recommendation, it's likely to be ignored.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's enough content to split off anyway. Besides, it the article needs massive, massive cleanup, especially since it's about the anime rather than the manga, meaning it makes the cardinal sin of "based on the manga of", which is not allowed per the Anime and manga MOS. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as above, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, split articles also have to meet GNG and it is not the case here.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no secondary sources, fails WP:GNG. There is nothing to merge as the series plot is already (too) extensively covered in the main article, covering the plot on a character by character basis is redundant to the main plot section.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you can always shorten the information in the main article so that it wouldn't be redundant. Isn't that what we normally do anyway? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Though the main plot section needs trimming, doing it in favor of a non-notable and unsourced character list doesn't seem logical to me. I've never been a fan of these "list of XXX characters", I always considered a plot section in the main article was enough, and lists as unacceptable plot-dump splits. There are good lists of character such as Characters of Myst, but the level of sourcing seems an exception compared to others.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A plot overview of the whole series is no substitute for a clear list of and basic description of the series' characters, a standard part of any series article. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain the difference between "plot overview" and " basic description of the series' characters", please. Per WP:NOTPLOT, Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, is that how Wikipedia treats fiction? You should probably spend some more time reading and editing articles, so as to acquaint yourself with the difference between plot and character sections and why series articles have both, and discussing rather than lecturing everyone on what you think the law of the land is. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Within the same article that sort of differenciation doesn't violate policy (especially since the article you're referring to has substancial "real-world" sections), though I still consider it redundant if the plot summary and the character-by-character plot summary tell the same thing. When dealing with separate articles, however, there is a problem if we don't have secondary coverage.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, is that how Wikipedia treats fiction? You should probably spend some more time reading and editing articles, so as to acquaint yourself with the difference between plot and character sections and why series articles have both, and discussing rather than lecturing everyone on what you think the law of the land is. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain the difference between "plot overview" and " basic description of the series' characters", please. Per WP:NOTPLOT, Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A plot overview of the whole series is no substitute for a clear list of and basic description of the series' characters, a standard part of any series article. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Though the main plot section needs trimming, doing it in favor of a non-notable and unsourced character list doesn't seem logical to me. I've never been a fan of these "list of XXX characters", I always considered a plot section in the main article was enough, and lists as unacceptable plot-dump splits. There are good lists of character such as Characters of Myst, but the level of sourcing seems an exception compared to others.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you can always shorten the information in the main article so that it wouldn't be redundant. Isn't that what we normally do anyway? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge – There are references to be found at Talk:Haré+Guu. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 14:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain which one precisely, and what element do they source ? Referencing plot elements won't solve the WP:NOTPLOT issue, and character reviews are unlikely to be substancial enough and might be more appropriate in the "reception" section of the main article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. Both of the Mania reviews, the 'Complete Collection' review at activeAnime, the Animefringe review, and both ANN reviews may be useful. BTW, you can take the merge option as including the possiblity of a redirect. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 04:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain which one precisely, and what element do they source ? Referencing plot elements won't solve the WP:NOTPLOT issue, and character reviews are unlikely to be substancial enough and might be more appropriate in the "reception" section of the main article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2012 (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.