408:). And as for "plot" (which you didn't me examples of your problems), Li Long's "Good Article" not only isn't much less detailed than this (compared only around 1-4 sentences for each main game in Taki's case) but manages to be confusing and inadequate by just not explaining things enough - actually only Taki's article provides explanation for things who was this "a woman named Chie" and the line "on the run from assassins sent by his former employer" that misleadingly suggests it's about the Chinese Emperor is just false (Taki's article explains what and why really happens - Li Long article's odd "While out one day, a fight broke out at the inn" is also directly related to Taki-Toki-Chie story). But that's a "Good Article" somehow - despite the reference using for it (this:
1070:"A shameful lack of due diligence"? That is a new one lol. I believe that further investigation should go into Japanese source given this is a character from a Japanese video game franchise; there could be possible be more information there, but I am uncertain due to the language barrier. Upon further examination of the sources, I am uncertain about the character's notability for a stand-alone article. However, I do not believe that deletion is the answer, as this is a viable source. I think that a redirect and selective merge to
693:
just a normal and approved way to talk to each other on
Knowledge - while complaining about that is "hysterical behavior", and also calmly editing without breaking any rules or arguing with anyone, having been specifically asked by another editor (requested publicly, without anyone opposing this idea for months), "likely to result in sanctions"? And is that "BEBOLD" to be his excuse also to having just (boldly) lie to everyone? That's some questions for everyone here.
595:) 3 months earlier and finally split Siegfried. This was preceded by blatant vandalism when he just deleted the article without asking anyone (and I did report this act of vandalism, but this didn't have a real effect apparently as he's not quite gone away / blocked / whatever). I'd really like his to be sanctioned in some way. --
1147:
This article has a good balance between real world and in-universe information. There is both positive and negative reception, the gameplay is mentioned from designer's point of view and there is some good creation information. I don't know if there's an example to follow but I think it surpasses the
1074:
would be a far better answer than a deletion, if consensus goes against the character having a standalone article. I have struck my keep vote, but I am not going to cast a further/different vote either way; I had previously cast the vote due to the sources in the "Design and characteristics" section.
692:
I said "in the style a threat of physical violence" - if I said he's "gonna get raped", would it also going to be ignored because I can't actually penetrate him over the internet and it's only in the style of sexual violence threat? Is "You are cruising for a bruising. Grow up, as quickly as you can"
688:
By cruising for a bruising I meant that snake's behavior was likely to result in sanctions. I fail to see how it could be construed as athreat of physical violence, since even if it is possible to deliver a slapped wrist or even the dreaded Rear
Admiral over the internet my technological knowledge is
883:
is a strategy to obscure that the article isn't about much of anything at all. Remove the sources that mention the character in passing and what's left? Lack of content is beyond mere "cleanup". Some of these paragraphs could be reduced to a single sentence and lose no important information. Indeed,
325:
and pointless details. There’s no way a general encyclopedia should be tracking all this minutiae about how her measurements/bust sizes (!?) have changed over the years, descriptions of all these different outfits she’s warn, etc. Making a determination on notability itself will take more time from
721:
Are you going to try to in any way excuse having just lied here, or are you just going to let me and everybody assume the worst about it? And are you going to provide an alternative excuse for your initial outburst of abuse against me, without me doing anything at all (having been busy researching
870:
to series character list or delete. I'd love to see the specific references/links upon which everyone above asserts this character's notability independent from others in the series. As far as I can tell, the character is only covered in context of other series characters (meaning that we should
591:
that only appeared in 2 games in this series (Taki's in 8, 7 of these playable, not counting spin-off games and guest appearances) and is actually even a "Good
Article" despite only having a fraction of references) attack on me TheLongTone that began when I just did as asked/requested to do (see
445:
OK, I'm sorry. So I've cleanup-rewritten it for -3 KB overall (some stuff added but much more removed), but I just don't think what you call "plot" can be any radically less detailed without missing in my opinion essential details. Li Long's "good article" wasn't (and still isn't) even much less
400:
etc.) reported. I removed the weight (and added the blood type). Btw I actually have a lot of
Japanese print material on the costumes and such from books and mags, but I have a difficult time translating it (I should really ask someone to do it for me). And as for measurements, even the "good
428:
Not exactly sure what you’re accusing me of, as I haven’t advocated deletion, and merely stated that the article is overly detailed, and needs trimming/cleanup, a sentiment shared with virtually all participants in this AFD as of writing this.
1032:
I do not see how my rationale is "vague waving at sources" as you put it, as I clearly state that I believe the sources currently used in the article support its notability. We may disagree on it, but my statement was not vague.
210:
505:"Taki is one of the stalwart mainstays of the Soul series. Even more so, as she is the only fighter to actually be playable in all six games. Everyone loves a good ninja, and Taki just so happens to be one of the best."
393:
258:
277:
354:(there's been over a dozen). As for "measurements", I'll give to you about the weight - actually the blood type would be more important (it's not there, but it's A), becuase of
204:
517:: The article itself cites sources to prove the subject's notability. The article requires clean-up and work, but that is definitely not a reason to nominate it for an AfD.
376:
Rest assured, everything I said is in there, is in there. But if you refuse to acknowledge it in there, I’m sure you’ll have no problem when it’s trimmed out down the line.
1164:
163:
392:
Most of "all these different outfits she’s warn" are not even mentioned, and these not mentioned are not named - only SC Woman is named, but only because it was widely
398:
299:
110:
95:
1047:...not providing specifics when prompted is the definition of vague. In fact, the logical conclusion is that the above editors are more impressed by
170:
926:
The article direly needs to be cleaned up, but even then there's enough notability presented by many of the better sources to keep it around.--
396:
136:
131:
140:
689:
not up to it. Their hysterical behavior underlines their need to mature a bit, altho I don't see it happening.12:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
123:
544:
of the sources (e.g. UGO, FHM) are both RS and discuss the character outside the context of the games, but this is really on the edge.
409:
346:"descriptions of all these different outfits she’s warn" (sic) - it isn't even there. Here's where it actually is (in pictures, since
1019:
Where is the evidence for these claims? A handful of links with brief rationale would suffice, but vague waving at sources does not.
225:
192:
671:(time: 14:00). His actual (quote) "response to fanboi's revert" was this, this time in the style a threat of physical violence:
90:
83:
17:
1071:
486:
355:
871:
cover the character proportionately in the existing list of series characters), in "top 10 babe" articles (which is not
186:
584:
and everyone please note it's a part of a weird, extremely aggresive, totally unprovoked (our very first interaction:
104:
100:
1107:
481:- it's not fancruft. The article incorporates conceptual design, and other encyclopedic information. I agree with
182:
1224:
500:
40:
1207:
1175:
1157:
1137:
1084:
1063:
1042:
1027:
970:
952:
935:
914:
896:
862:
833:
813:
790:
755:
731:
716:
702:
683:
642:
630:
604:
576:
553:
526:
490:
463:
440:
423:
411:) being just mistranslated from Japanese! I just fixed this glorious Good Article by correcting disinformation:
387:
371:
341:
313:
291:
269:
250:
65:
446:
detailed while at the same time managed to be a "goof article". It could EASILY be so much more detailed, like
58:
232:
905:
I would not be opposed to a redirect, but I do not think it should be deleted as it is a viable search term.
1075:
I had felt at the time those sources satisfied notability (just a further explanation of my previous vote).
876:
850:
821:
308:
286:
127:
750:
435:
382:
336:
1220:
1187:
976:
931:
722:
for further editing, and only learning about your existence from your instant threats on my talk page)?
712:
626:
621:
into a redirect. Than is not vandalism; my cited comment was a response to fanboi's revert of that edit.
246:
36:
593:
966:
811:
788:
727:
698:
679:
600:
459:
419:
367:
1194:. The article is well referenced and there's nothing wrong with articles about fictional characters.
198:
1191:
549:
218:
447:
303:
281:
119:
71:
347:
1201:
1153:
1132:
1048:
880:
858:
853:". There is no deadline, so encourage shorter text by discuss for weeks at article talkpage. -
776:
745:
570:
537:
482:
430:
377:
331:
327:
262:
79:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1219:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1080:
1038:
1013:
927:
910:
885:
872:
829:
708:
622:
614:
522:
242:
1055:, as there is no evidence of the latter. This AfD shows a shameful lack of due diligence.
997:
962:
805:
782:
723:
694:
675:
596:
455:
415:
363:
674:(time: 14:03; quote: "You are cruising for a bruising. Grow up, as quickly as you can.")
1118:
Many of the keep votes don't focus on specific sources. Further discussion is required.
1057:
1021:
946:
890:
846:
545:
54:
1010:"there's enough notability presented by many of the better sources to keep it around"
414:
and I suggest for you to try constructive things like that, instead of what you do. --
1168:
984:
842:
741:
737:
322:
1197:
1149:
1123:
1052:
988:
854:
562:
405:
has the height, despite this having not been commented on (Taki's was, in the book
157:
504:
451:
406:
1076:
1034:
1005:
906:
825:
518:
875:
nevertheless worthy of being linked in an encyclopedia at all), or in patently
351:
321:
Even if the article is kept, this needs to be trimmed way down. Way too much
781:, pinging you to intervene in this discussion. It's getting out of hand.
736:
Valid or not, comments on editor conduct generally don't belong here at
958:
588:
402:
975:? That isn't the article under discussion. Of this Taki article's
1002:"article itself cites sources to prove the subject's notability"
841:
to allow cleanup or reduction of text, without raising debate to
454:
for example ("great schemer"? didn't say it's WELL written!). --
1215:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
448:
https://soulcalibur.wikia.com/Taki/Original_Timeline#Biography
1110:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
348:
https://soulcalibur.wikia.com/Taki/Original_Timeline#Costumes
849:-close this AfD as Keep, and advise to debate further at: "
241:
Fancruft. A redirect to the list of characters is enough.
957:
Of the kind like the all 6 from the related Good
Article
587:), and selective (only this article, and not for example
259:
list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions
804:. Stand-alone notability has been proven. Trim the fat.
672:
669:
666:
585:
412:
278:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
153:
149:
145:
217:
1121:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
540:(also fine with Redirect as a secondary option). A
489:, and/or collaboration among interested parties.
485:that it needs to be trimmed, which can be done by
884:that's what they would need to be coherent for a
707:Can you translate the above into English, please?
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1227:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1165:list of Video games-related deletion discussions
1163:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1051:than any source that actually, reliably asserts
298:Note: This discussion has been included in the
276:Note: This discussion has been included in the
257:Note: This discussion has been included in the
452:https://soulcalibur.wikia.com/Taki#Personality
992:
231:
8:
111:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
1162:
1053:the standalone importance of the character
994:"Stand-alone notability has been proven."
649:The following discussion has been closed.
637:
352:https://soulcalibur.wikia.com/Taki/Gallery
326:me, as this seems to be a massive case of
300:list of Games-related deletion discussions
297:
275:
256:
991:from the rest of the series characters?
1186:The rationale was poor and feels like
395:(and elsewhere not on tyhis list, like
617:changed an overlong heap of fancruft
503:"SOULCALIBUR: THE TOP TEN FIGHTERS",
7:
356:how huge this is in Japanese culture
845:. To avoid further conflicts, then
665:It's a lie and he's lying. Proof:
24:
744:if you wish to argue about that.
96:Introduction to deletion process
851:Talk:Taki (Soulcalibur)#Shorten
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1072:List of Soulcalibur characters
1:
1208:07:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
1085:00:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
1064:12:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
66:11:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
1176:15:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
1158:16:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
1138:14:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
1043:12:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
1028:12:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
971:06:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
953:04:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
936:19:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
915:04:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
897:10:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
888:, our intended readership.
863:19:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
834:19:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
814:15:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
791:15:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
756:19:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
732:13:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
717:13:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
703:13:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
684:12:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
643:06:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
631:12:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
605:03:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
577:22:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
554:20:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
527:16:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
491:15:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
464:11:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
441:11:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
424:03:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
388:03:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
372:02:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
342:14:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
314:12:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
292:12:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
270:12:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
251:12:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
86:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1244:
323:in-universe story details
1217:Please do not modify it.
652:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1049:reams of mere mentions
1018:
989:independent notability
536:but trim way down per
499:Adding info cited to
84:Articles for deletion
1148:needs of notability.
985:significant coverage
873:significant coverage
641:ANI is thataway ⤴️
330:at first glance...
1190:as well as being a
55:(non-admin closure)
1116:Relisting comment:
877:unreliable sources
120:Taki (Soulcalibur)
72:Taki (Soulcalibur)
61:—SerialNumber54129
1205:
1178:
1140:
798:
797:
668:(time: 13:54) vs
613:Oh puh-leeese. I
316:
294:
272:
101:Guide to deletion
91:How to contribute
57:
1235:
1196:
1173:
1135:
1131:
1129:
1126:
1120:
1113:
1111:
1062:
1060:
1026:
1024:
1016:
1008:
1000:
961:, presumably. --
951:
949:
895:
893:
886:general audience
822:WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP
808:
785:
780:
753:
748:
654:
638:
573:
566:
506:
438:
433:
385:
380:
350:is just empty):
339:
334:
311:
306:
289:
284:
267:
236:
235:
221:
173:
161:
143:
81:
63:
53:
34:
1243:
1242:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1225:deletion review
1206:
1169:
1141:
1133:
1127:
1124:
1122:
1106:
1104:
1058:
1056:
1022:
1020:
1011:
1003:
995:
947:
945:
891:
889:
806:
783:
774:
751:
746:
650:
571:
564:
561:per Chetsford.
436:
431:
383:
378:
337:
332:
309:
304:
287:
282:
263:
178:
169:
134:
118:
115:
78:
75:
59:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1241:
1239:
1230:
1229:
1211:
1210:
1195:
1188:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1180:
1179:
1160:
1119:
1114:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1009:
1001:
987:so as to show
939:
938:
920:
919:
918:
917:
900:
899:
865:
836:
816:
796:
795:
794:
793:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
656:
655:
646:
645:
636:
635:
634:
633:
608:
607:
579:
556:
510:
509:
508:
507:
494:
493:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
318:
317:
295:
273:
239:
238:
175:
114:
113:
108:
98:
93:
76:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1240:
1228:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1213:
1212:
1209:
1203:
1199:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1177:
1174:
1172:
1166:
1161:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1146:
1143:
1142:
1139:
1136:
1130:
1117:
1112:
1109:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1073:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1061:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1017:
1015:
1007:
999:
990:
986:
982:
978:
974:
973:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
955:
954:
950:
943:
942:
941:
940:
937:
933:
929:
925:
922:
921:
916:
912:
908:
904:
903:
902:
901:
898:
894:
887:
882:
878:
874:
869:
866:
864:
860:
856:
852:
848:
844:
840:
837:
835:
831:
827:
823:
820:
817:
815:
812:
809:
803:
800:
799:
792:
789:
786:
778:
773:
757:
754:
749:
743:
740:. Take it to
739:
735:
734:
733:
729:
725:
720:
719:
718:
714:
710:
706:
705:
704:
700:
696:
691:
690:
687:
686:
685:
681:
677:
673:
670:
667:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
653:
648:
647:
644:
640:
639:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
611:
610:
609:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
583:
580:
578:
574:
568:
567:
560:
557:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
524:
520:
516:
502:
498:
497:
496:
495:
492:
488:
484:
480:
477:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
444:
443:
442:
439:
434:
427:
426:
425:
421:
417:
413:
410:
407:
404:
399:
397:
394:
391:
390:
389:
386:
381:
375:
374:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
344:
343:
340:
335:
329:
324:
320:
319:
315:
312:
307:
305:GameInfirmary
301:
296:
293:
290:
285:
283:GameInfirmary
279:
274:
271:
268:
266:
260:
255:
254:
253:
252:
248:
244:
234:
230:
227:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
184:
181:
180:Find sources:
176:
172:
168:
165:
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:
112:
109:
106:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
88:
87:
85:
80:
73:
70:
68:
67:
64:
62:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1216:
1214:
1192:WP:VAGUEWAVE
1183:
1170:
1144:
1115:
1105:
993:
980:
923:
867:
838:
818:
801:
777:Sergecross73
747:Sergecross73
651:
618:
581:
563:
558:
541:
538:Sergecross73
533:
514:
512:
511:
487:copy editors
483:Sergecross73
478:
432:Sergecross73
379:Sergecross73
359:
333:Sergecross73
265:CAPTAIN RAJU
264:
240:
228:
222:
214:
207:
201:
195:
189:
179:
166:
77:
60:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1014:Kung Fu Man
977:195 sources
928:Kung Fu Man
709:TheLongTone
623:TheLongTone
243:TheLongTone
205:free images
998:Soetermans
963:SNAAAAKE!!
881:Refbombing
807:soetermans
784:soetermans
724:SNAAAAKE!!
695:SNAAAAKE!!
676:SNAAAAKE!!
597:SNAAAAKE!!
456:SNAAAAKE!!
416:SNAAAAKE!!
364:SNAAAAKE!!
328:WP:BOMBARD
1221:talk page
615:WP:BEBOLD
559:Weak Keep
546:Chetsford
534:Weak Keep
401:Article"
37:talk page
1223:or in a
1171:TarkusAB
1108:Relisted
983:provide
868:Redirect
164:View log
105:glossary
39:or in a
1198:ZXCVBNM
1150:Tintor2
959:Li Long
944:Which?
855:Wikid77
847:wp:SNOW
589:Li Long
565:Nomader
403:Li Long
358:. Also
211:WPÂ refs
199:scholar
137:protect
132:history
82:New to
1128:umbolo
1077:Aoba47
1035:Aoba47
1006:Aoba47
907:Aoba47
843:wp:DRV
826:GRuban
752:msg me
742:WP:ANI
738:WP:AFD
592:here:
519:Aoba47
437:msg me
384:msg me
360:no lol
338:msg me
183:Google
141:delete
981:which
582:KEEP;
501:IGN's
450:plus
226:JSTOR
187:books
171:Stats
158:views
150:watch
146:links
16:<
1202:TALK
1184:Keep
1154:talk
1145:Keep
1081:talk
1059:czar
1039:talk
1023:czar
967:talk
948:czar
932:talk
924:Keep
911:talk
892:czar
859:talk
839:Keep
830:talk
824:. --
819:Keep
802:Keep
728:talk
713:talk
699:talk
680:talk
627:talk
619:back
601:talk
572:talk
550:talk
523:talk
515:Keep
479:Keep
460:talk
420:talk
368:talk
310:Talk
288:Talk
247:talk
219:FENS
193:news
154:logs
128:talk
124:edit
50:keep
1134:^^^
542:few
233:TWL
162:– (
1167:.
1156:)
1083:)
1041:)
979:,
969:)
934:)
913:)
879:.
861:)
832:)
810:.
787:.
730:)
715:)
701:)
682:)
629:)
603:)
575:)
552:)
525:)
462:)
422:)
370:)
362:.
302:.
280:.
261:.
249:)
213:)
156:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
52:.
1204:)
1200:(
1152:(
1125:w
1079:(
1037:(
1012:@
1004:@
996:@
965:(
930:(
909:(
857:(
828:(
779::
775:@
726:(
711:(
697:(
678:(
625:(
599:(
569:(
548:(
521:(
513:*
458:(
418:(
366:(
245:(
237:)
229:·
223:·
215:·
208:·
202:·
196:·
190:·
185:(
177:(
174:)
167:·
160:)
122:(
107:)
103:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.