303:
GNG relevant--the purpose of
Knowledge is to have understandable documented content about important things. The material here is presumably documented by the original source, and if there is interpretation, there is probably criticism, at least in Japanese, to provide it--though it may come from other than our customary RS routine. As for the redirect--it would make sense to do this, but essentially the full content of the article is needed The rationale for separate articles as a matter of routine of major characters is that it would otherwise overbalance the article and impair readability. The GNG is a tool to be used when appropriate--it does many things well, but it does not work very well with fiction--as has been abundantly proven by several hundred afds. A guideline we cannot agree on how to apply is useless.
427:
is sufficiently popular (and presumably lucrative) to have been translated from its original language, and is voiced by a character actor sufficiently notable to have a
Knowledge article. It appears this character is even sufficiently popular/recognizable to have been parodied by another character in another ficitional piece. Again, I acknowledge the bright line of missing sourcing, and whether it's due to the language barrier or whatever, it is real; however, it simply feels like in this case our guideline is too exclusionary.
621:
not, but this article is not a treatment of the subject, and there hasn't been any effort to find third party material for it in (again) the year since the last nomination. If you want to help keep the article, can I suggest rather than arguing with me using the article's talk page and posting links to articles or items in reliable sources that give the character notability. If you can find sources then do so.--
653:
a mass collective to have articles on every subject. What's gained is two fold: articles don't grow stagnant and can be reduced to the material that will inform more than a small fanbase, and newcomers do not readily assume such material is the "standard". Compare this article to featured video game character articles, and tell me which sounds more encyclopedic.
638:
were provided when there was controversy. This is how WP works. Vandalism and forced PoV cause enough damage as it is. We don't need notability zealots deleting articles. I notice you've read my posts but never answered my question: what do you gain in deleting lacking articles? Is it better to have nothing rather than something incomplete?
673:
for them won't. I don't see a problem here. I know the policies, sadly. You and others like TTN just make the worst possible use and interpretation of them. As for featured articles, this is precisely what all the categories, fancy stars and tags are for: articles have different quality. So what, you want all subpar articles deleted?
672:
Unless it is replaced by something else, it is destruction. Deleting doesn't fix anything. Stagnant articles are better than no article. No-article doesn't "inform more than a small fanbase", it doesn't inform anyone. Newcomers looking for "non notable" subjects will find just that. Those not looking
652:
Excuse me, but you apparently prefer contributing to the problem instead of fixing it. Simply voting "keep" on a subject without attempting to fix it does nothing: all that will happen is that if left unfixed it will be nominated again or merged. This is not what "WP is". It's not a fansite. It's not
637:
Hey, I'm not the one spending hours a day actively trying to destroy other people's work. I don't contribute to these articles because i'm not familiar with the subject but it's typically the kind of "non notable" data I enjoyed finding in WP. Inaccuracies were quickly edited by the fans and sources
579:
The issue is that the target article is solely a biography and not an encyclopedic treatment on the character. In addition it fails general notability in that there are no citations for third party reception of any sort for this character, plus a lack of development info. It's been tagged since the
426:
although I can live with merge, and acknowledge that a merge better reflects our current policy. I freely admit the lack of reliable sources in
English about this character, but have a problem with ignoring the obvious indicia of notability -this is a major character in a multi-media franchise that
302:
Ciel at least is a major figure in the story--possibly this applies to MRJ as well. The clearest way of resenting fiction is to do substantial discussions of the major characters. It can be seen as an supplementary way of presenting the plot, or, sometimes, the principal way. I do not consider the
620:
Because it's the same issue as the
Soulcalibur articles (yes I read your discussion there): nobody is working on or improving this article or others. The last edit to Ciel's was Dec 2 by...oh yes, me. Go figure. I'm not disagreeing with you that Ciel or other merged characters aren't important or
323:
Main character != necessary for inclusion or understanding of the plot or allowing you to ignore the GNG. If anything, the recent RfC came out fairly strongly against spinouts that are not lists (in other words, stuff that has community consensus to stay, such as episode or character lists), and
564:
Being of "importance to the overall subject" and "spanning multiple works (a television series, or a movie or video game franchise)", let alone different media, certainly indicate notability and fit my citation. "Excessively long biography" is subjective. As for speculation, well, tag the
509:, blood types are very frequently shorthand statements about character personality. It's information often given for character information, along with age and height. Not that this is revelant to this AfD, being a question of what/whether to do any clean-up on a potential merge targe... —
286:
If the character already exists at the related character list, I think redirecting is the best option. It allows people to salvage material from this article if they decide to merge (with reliable sources) after all. -
584:. Like it or not, simply being a "major character" in a title does not entitle them to have an article on Knowledge. The information can be merged and restored easily if information turns up at a later time.--
549:
By your own citation, "Articles that are overwhelmed with speculation, or that have excessively long biographies are often deleted." Being a main character does not guarantee notability, as notability isn't
77:
324:
honestly, that's all that is necessary to understand the plot here. Trying to say that the GNG is irrelevant to fiction given the rather large evidence to the contrary doesn't work. In any case, see
700:
237:
137:
72:
156:. An entry for the character already exists on the related subject matter's character list, and salvageable material from the article can readily be worked into it.
265:
190:
185:
194:
177:
104:
99:
108:
353:
715:
682:
665:
647:
630:
615:
593:
574:
559:
542:
518:
496:
444:
418:
390:
377:
361:
336:
314:
294:
277:
252:
225:
165:
91:
56:
598:
Except this is a nomination for deletion and who will remember where to find the lost informations? And it's a major character in
453:
Let me clarify that my "keep" comments refer to Ciel only. The villain, while important to the story, is appropriate for merger.
606:. Again, I see the loss but what is the gain in deleting the article, as opposed to leaving it alone until someone improves it?
656:
This isn't destruction, it's cleanup. It happens. Please actually bother reading policies before you lecture on what "WP is".--
506:
17:
480:
463:
437:
403:
349:
479:- excessive fictional details, no demonstration of the subject's importance outside the game. Not particularly keen on
181:
368:
Do you have sources for the character itself? That was mentioned in the last AfD but no sources were even added.--
731:
36:
730:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
678:
643:
611:
570:
538:
292:
357:
173:
661:
626:
589:
555:
514:
492:
407:
373:
325:
273:
248:
221:
161:
95:
711:
674:
639:
607:
566:
534:
411:
383:
329:
288:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
565:
incriminated parts. And again, I see the loss but what is the gain in deleting this article?
657:
622:
585:
551:
510:
488:
459:
433:
369:
269:
244:
217:
157:
87:
62:
484:
707:
531:
310:
153:
50:
211:
125:
382:
Popularity means really nothing unless there are sources to substantiate that. —
352:... I will note that Tsukihime and this character appear to be popular in Japan.
530:. This is a major character who has appeared in several different media. As per
454:
428:
149:
145:
168:
I am also nominating the following related page for the very same reasons:
305:
532:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Characters
724:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
144:
Article has not improved at all since the previous AfD, failing
408:
User talk:Kung Fu Man#Fate/stay night, Tsukihime characters
326:
User talk:Kung Fu Man#Fate/stay night, Tsukihime characters
701:
list of
Fictional characters-related deletion discussions
207:
203:
199:
132:
121:
117:
113:
78:
Articles for deletion/Ciel (Tsukihime) (2nd nomination)
406:. No adequate assertion of notability for either. See
238:
list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
734:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
507:cultural importance of blood types in Japan
699:: This debate has been included in the
264:: This debate has been included in the
236:: This debate has been included in the
152:still, while also containing a dash of
70:
73:Articles for deletion/Ciel (Tsukihime)
483:, either. We don't need to know what
7:
328:. Neither asserts any notability. —
266:list of video game related deletions
69:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
485:each character's blood type is
1:
716:21:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
683:02:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
666:01:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
648:01:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
631:00:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
616:23:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
594:23:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
575:23:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
560:22:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
543:22:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
519:17:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
497:16:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
481:List of Tsukihime characters
445:11:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
419:06:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
404:List of Tsukihime characters
391:06:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
378:06:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
362:06:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
350:List of Tsukihime characters
337:06:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
315:22:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
295:22:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
278:21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
253:21:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
226:21:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
166:21:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
57:05:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
751:
727:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
174:Michael Roa Valdamjong
68:AfDs for this article:
505:Actually, given the
582:without improvement
44:The result was
718:
704:
468:
466:So let it be done
461:
442:
440:So let it be done
435:
280:
255:
241:
742:
729:
705:
695:
580:last nomination
464:
460:
438:
434:
416:
388:
334:
260:
242:
232:
215:
197:
135:
129:
111:
88:Ciel (Tsukihime)
63:Ciel (Tsukihime)
53:
34:
750:
749:
745:
744:
743:
741:
740:
739:
738:
732:deletion review
725:
467:
441:
412:
384:
330:
188:
172:
131:
102:
86:
83:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
748:
746:
737:
736:
720:
719:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
670:
669:
668:
654:
635:
634:
633:
546:
545:
524:
523:
522:
521:
500:
499:
473:
472:
471:
470:
465:
448:
447:
439:
421:
396:
395:
394:
393:
365:
364:
342:
341:
340:
339:
318:
317:
297:
281:
257:
256:
229:
228:
142:
141:
82:
81:
80:
75:
67:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
747:
735:
733:
728:
722:
721:
717:
713:
709:
702:
698:
694:
693:
684:
680:
676:
675:Laurent paris
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
650:
649:
645:
641:
640:Laurent paris
636:
632:
628:
624:
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
608:Laurent paris
605:
601:
597:
596:
595:
591:
587:
583:
578:
577:
576:
572:
568:
567:Laurent paris
563:
562:
561:
557:
553:
548:
547:
544:
540:
536:
535:Laurent paris
533:
529:
526:
525:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
503:
502:
501:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
475:
474:
469:
462:
458:
457:
452:
451:
450:
449:
446:
443:
436:
432:
431:
425:
422:
420:
417:
415:
414:sephiroth bcr
409:
405:
401:
398:
397:
392:
389:
387:
386:sephiroth bcr
381:
380:
379:
375:
371:
367:
366:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
346:Keep or merge
344:
343:
338:
335:
333:
332:sephiroth bcr
327:
322:
321:
320:
319:
316:
312:
308:
307:
301:
298:
296:
293:
290:
285:
282:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
258:
254:
250:
246:
239:
235:
231:
230:
227:
223:
219:
213:
209:
205:
201:
196:
192:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
170:
169:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
139:
134:
127:
123:
119:
115:
110:
106:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
79:
76:
74:
71:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
726:
723:
696:
603:
599:
581:
550:inherited.--
527:
476:
455:
429:
423:
413:
399:
385:
354:76.66.194.58
345:
331:
304:
299:
283:
261:
233:
143:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
658:Kung Fu Man
623:Kung Fu Man
586:Kung Fu Man
552:Kung Fu Man
511:Quasirandom
489:Marasmusine
370:Kung Fu Man
270:Kung Fu Man
245:Kung Fu Man
218:Kung Fu Man
158:Kung Fu Man
400:Merge both
708:Raven1977
284:Redirect
138:View log
600:several
191:protect
186:history
105:protect
100:history
52:MBisanz
477:Delete
456:Xymmax
430:Xymmax
195:delete
133:delete
109:delete
602:title
402:– to
212:views
204:watch
200:links
154:WP:OR
136:) – (
126:views
118:watch
114:links
16:<
712:talk
697:Note
679:talk
662:talk
644:talk
627:talk
612:talk
590:talk
571:talk
556:talk
539:talk
528:Keep
515:talk
493:talk
424:Keep
410:. —
374:talk
358:talk
311:talk
300:Keep
274:talk
262:Note
249:talk
234:Note
222:talk
208:logs
182:talk
178:edit
162:talk
150:WP:N
148:and
146:WP:V
122:logs
96:talk
92:edit
46:keep
706:--
703:.
348:to
306:DGG
289:Mgm
240:.
714:)
681:)
664:)
646:)
629:)
614:)
592:)
573:)
558:)
541:)
517:)
495:)
487:.
376:)
360:)
313:)
276:)
268:.
251:)
224:)
216:--
210:|
206:|
202:|
198:|
193:|
189:|
184:|
180:|
164:)
124:|
120:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
48:.
710:(
677:(
660:(
642:(
625:(
610:(
604:s
588:(
569:(
554:(
537:(
513:(
491:(
372:(
356:(
309:(
291:|
272:(
247:(
243:—
220:(
214:)
176:(
160:(
140:)
130:(
128:)
90:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.