Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belldandy


 * 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 irrelevant, as the nominator has no desire to see the articles in question deleted or even merged (which wouldn't belong on AFD anyway), and is dangerously close to adding to his already impressive block history. Don't make people argue against positions you don't hold. &mdash;Cryptic 12:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Belldandy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * All articles in Category:Oh My Goddess! characters
 * All articles in Category:Oh My Goddess! characters
 * All articles in Category:Oh My Goddess! characters
 * All articles in Category:Oh My Goddess! characters

Non-notable four main characters from Oh My Goddess!. If not even the main characters aren't notable enough to be stand alone articles, neither should a list of them. -- Cat chi? 12:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Here. I guess the debate there will be more productive. So much for now, I'll come around again when some standpoints are made. Greetings. --Tone 14:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy close - this is pique about a merge suggestion. --Jack Merridew 12:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to List of Oh My Goddess characters. Emending my opinion. --Jack Merridew 15:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — While this nomination includes all the characters, only the main characters are explicitly named. This is resulting in "Keep Belldandy" votes. This is an attempt to get a keep that can be claimed to apply to all with the goal of thwarting the merge discussions at Talk:Oh My Goddess! and Talk:List of Oh My Goddess characters that are not going to the nominator's liking. This view has been expressed by others here. I would also like to point out the White Cat summarily reverted my initial merge-tagging of the character articles; see and about 35 other reverts in the same 5 minute time frame. We all know that the reasonable outcome here is for editors to bring the main characters up to par (which is possibly doable) and a merge of the minor characters (because they're minor and because there is little possibility that they can be brought up to snuff). --Jack Merridew 11:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tone has decided to give me time as the initiator for the first thread. For that what have you done? Think about it. -- Cat chi? 12:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (Above is a reference to User:Tone who first proposed merging the minor characters. I don't see where he "gave you time"; he supported merging.)
 * Time for you to improve the articles? And here you are proposing their deletion. Consider yourself awarded a pointy-barnstar. --Jack Merridew 12:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you in a state of panic? Is there a WP:BLP violation that demands urgent action? How is "So much for now" not an attempt to give me more time? You people who mass redirect fiction related articles in bulk, often doing so despite a discussion, declared all the characters of the series to be non-notable and imposed your will rather than seeking a consensus. Rather than submitting to your will, I have taken the matter to afd, a place where a wide variety of neutral users comment on the issue. The discussion is below. And my barnstar cluster is quite extensive - not that it means much. -- Cat chi? 12:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The heck? It is a legitimate nomination. A test case at worst for such articles. -- Cat chi? 12:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT - but if you garner a few deletes, I'll change and support'em. --Jack Merridew 12:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What am I disrupting, and what am I illustrating? Your attitude seems confused. You say you do not want them deleted a line above with a "speedy close" yet on the next line you say you'd support deletion. Feel free to file a complaint at WP:ANB/I. -- Cat chi? 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to confuse WP:POINT and WP:CON... -- Cat chi? 13:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not start with this utterly non-notable bit of under aged fan service: Sigel (Oh My Goddess!)? --Jack Merridew 12:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a bulk nom of all character articles. That is a part of this nomination as is Lind (Oh My Goddess!), and Peorth. If this succeeds I intend to nominate all the remaining articles. If the characters and episodes are non-notable, neither is the series. Simple basic logic. -- Cat chi? 12:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya, I missed that --Jack Merridew 13:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a point? Stay on topic. -- Cat chi? 13:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya, that I missed that you had expanded the scope of your nomination to include all of the characters — including the fan service example I gave. --Jack Merridew 13:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fan service? She/It is a freaking robot. Sexuality is not an issue. That is the only official colorful image of her/it as she/is is a Manga only character with a prominent role in the manga. -- Cat chi? 13:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please observe guidelines on coupyrights and non-free images. Edits such as this are problematic. Non-free images are not allowed at all on non-main namespace pages. -- Cat chi? 13:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Illustrating a point - without disruption. --Jack Merridew 13:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have posted the matter on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Cat chi? 13:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep verifiable, notable, Wikipedia is not paper. If you want to work on a project that just covers the same stuff as Britannica, go apply for a job with Britannica. Wikipedia can cover stuff like this accurately... there seems to be no good reason to prevent us from doing so. --W.marsh 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:Notability, all articles are presumed to be notable by default, unless proven otherwise. And I AM holding quite a few sources at hand to prove anyone thinking of proving it otherwise wrong, so, what is your point in saying these articles are not notable? MythSearchertalk 13:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? I missed that part of WP:NOTABILITY; when I last read it, articles had to establish their notability. --Jack Merridew 13:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. And one of the sources can be pretty much enough for Belldandy.  From ISBN4-8124-054302 The pretty Character Chronicles, The History of Animation Heroines, 1958~1999, Belldandy is an iconic character of man's ideal female in all sense, and influnced later productions to create similar perfect female characters., In Game Players 1998 October issue(Vol. 16) Special, Virtual DoLLs, similar comment was made, this time specifically mentioned about the influnce in computer love similation games.  If a character is enough to influence future stories, I'd say it is pretty notable. MythSearchertalk 16:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you believe the main characters should get articles, then you can make them and follow the suggestions they give to make the articles. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to a List of Oh My Goddess! characters. Unless real-world notability can be established for these individual characters, they do not warrant a separate article under our policies governing notability for fictional characters. Fail that, they should be Deleted, but a merge would be preferable. Eusebeus 13:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * better: List of Oh My Goddess characters — but I don't care about the exclamation point. --Jack Merridew 13:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Notifiable and verifiable, appears to be a bad-faith (or at least misguided) nom. I quote: "If this succeeds I intend to nominate all the remaining articles. If the characters and episodes are non-notable, neither is the series."  Uhh, please don't.  Thanks. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is merely an attempt to establish consensus. -- Cat chi? 14:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * However, they don't establish their notability and have no secondary sources. --Jack Merridew 14:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge due to a lack of real world information and no assertion that it will ever be found. Just as a note to White Cat, even if this ends up as keep, that does not mean that these cannot be merged during a smaller discussion. TTN 15:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment (to others) There is already considerable discussion tipping towards merging at Talk:Oh My Goddess! and Talk:List of Oh My Goddess characters. This nom would appear to be an attempted end-run re those discussions. --Jack Merridew 15:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No they should not be merged if they are non-notable. Are suggesting that the result of this AFD should be ignored unless you agree with it? -- Cat chi? 16:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The outcome of this discussion does not determine notability ("Notability requires objective evidence"). It also only determines if the articles are kept, merged, or deleted as of this discussion. The separate merge discussion can and still will go on, no matter the outcome of this. TTN 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any instance were you can form a complete response without quoting a guideline or policy? Arguments strictly based on policy, guideline or Jimbo himself are quotedly quite weak. In other words you will challenge any consensus till the pages get deleted... -- Cat chi? 19:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I must remind you that according to WP:FICT, If these concepts are individually notable and an encyclopedic treatment causes the article on the work itself to become long, then the concepts are split into succinct sub-articles that maintain such an encyclopedic treatment. However, material should be organized into complete articles and presented correctly; the existence of numerous small sub-articles can lead to disorganization and unbalanced coverage. 
 * To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should still strive to provide real-world content. 
 * And obviously if all merged, the main article would be way too long, so a sperated character page is surely advisible. MythSearchertalk 16:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.   —Quasirandom 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.   —Quasirandom 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Bendandy: MythSearcher has established the independent notability of that character above. For the others, weak keep to give the oportunity for establishing same for the others. —Quasirandom 18:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and not merge. WP is not paper, several articles are better than one.  Grue   18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as bad faith nomination. The nominator is clearly throwing a tantrum over the proposed merger of these articles and has put them up for deletion, thus disrupting Wikipedia, to illustrate a point. However, there should be no prejudice on merger of these articles. --Farix (Talk) 19:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again what point am I illustrating? What is in bad faith here? Why MUST they be merged? If they are non-notable they should be deleted. If they are notable why was the reason for the merge suggestion? -- Cat chi? 19:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The bad faith is that you put these articles up for deletion in order to thwart a merger discussion. The point you are making is that you own these articles and will "take your ball and go home" because you're not get your way in the merger discussion. --Farix (Talk) 20:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So seeking a more general opinion (sanity check if you will) from a more wide variety of users rather than surrendering to the imposed consensus by few dedicated users whose entire contribution is the mass removal of articles is what you call pointy... Please file a case at WP:ANB/I then. -- Cat chi? 20:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you actually wanted a more general opinion, then you would have filed a RfC. You know full well about the dispute resolution process and know that AfD is not part of it. That is why this AfD is a pointy exercise. --Farix (Talk) 20:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't a matter of "disagreement" and hence there isn't a dispute to seek a resolution for. I am merely taking the notability concern to AFD seeking a more general opinion. Stop accusing me. If you must, file it to WP:ANB/I. -- Cat chi? 20:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the articles' notability, but with the merger proposal. Non-notable articles can be merged into a notable article, which is why the merger discussion should continue without further harassment and disruption. Wikipeda's deletion policy encourages that a merger be looked into before an article is put up for deletion. You disagree with the merger and you are not getting your way in the discussion, thus you set up this AFD. It is also not necessary to take it to WP:ANI as it doesn't require immediate action from an administrator. If you really think it does, then you should ask for it. --Farix (Talk) 20:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A list of non-notable topics is also non-notable. Oh My Goddess! characters aren't worth a mention if they are all non-notable. If they are notable, then thats an entirely different universe. I really like this concept of being name-called a "WP:POINT violator" when I seek a deletion discussion of some articles. But when others do so without a discussion or even despite a discussion they are given medals instead. -- Cat chi? 20:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The character is the main character of the series. Showers 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Looks like it meets notability. I'm not sure that a lot of good is going to come from this staying open.  Without judging either side, it looks like it's drifted from AFD to a conflict that should probably be handled elsewhere.--Cube lurker 21:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep nonsense nom. JuJube 22:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Mythsearcher. Edward321 23:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Anyone wanna bet cat'll have a tantrum and threaten to quit? Anyone? HalfShadow 00:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Lets bet, I wager $210 that he wouldn't. -- Cat chi? 00:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You do understand that your nomination have no point at all in supporting the deletion, right? You gave no reason of why the characters are non-notable, and you just keep saying they are non-notable.  If you have a point, say it. Tell us why it is non-notable.  According to WP:Notability, notability is presumed, yet you just presumed it to be non-notable from the very beginning, and that alone is bad faith. MythSearchertalk 03:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I simply relayed the merge/redirectification (a kind of defacto deletion) rationale I was thrown at. If I have done so inadequately, people throwing it the non-notability claim are present in this discussion and had every opportunity to have done a better job than I have. I am allowed to make nominations contradicting my personal views on any topic and this isn't the first time I have done so. Notability is a serious mater and the intention of this nomination merely is the gathering of a more broad opinion. If the consensus is a delete, thats fine; if the consensus is a keep that is also fine. The articles I nominated for deletion are mostly my creation. I spent a great deal of time, effort and resources on them. I would not have created them had I felt that they were not worth the effort for any reason. So this is FAR from bad faith - just a sanity check on my part (if nothing else). -- Cat chi? 07:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Belldandy has been in existence for 20 years and counting.  While the article itself lacks out-of-universe information, there has to be plenty of that somewhere. KyuuA4 05:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, at most we merge, but deletion is pretty much out of the question, per WP:FICT. -- Ned Scott 05:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per MythSearcher, Farix, and others above. This is a tantrum nomination. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. We can discuss the merge later. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The information in the articles, although not necessarily notable, could be seen as sub-articles of Oh My Goddess, and provides background information and context for the main article. It would be impractical to merge all of the information to either the subarticle or to a list, but that is a discussion for another day here or here. It may be helpful if everybody on this discussion would provide input at those discussions. G.A.S 06:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.