Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess Pieces (MÄR)


 * 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 &mdash; Caknuck 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Chess Pieces (MÄR)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod; the rationale advanced for removing the tag was "Let this page stay, it's a good info about the show's antagonists." Yet as the primary editor of this article himself asserts, this article is "just another 'List of Characters' article."  This article blatantly fails to assert notability, despite repeated notifications of non-notability dating back to at least March 2007. In addition, the article has serious attribution deficiencies, as the only citations provided are to fan sites. A Google search reveals no evidence of reliable sources that would establish notability for this topic. This article is just another collection of fancruft and essentially original research. --Nonstopdrivel 14:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Let this page stay. We need a page for MAR's antagonists. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:FICT lists of characters which are too long for reasonable inclusion in the article for the series can be created. Otto4711 17:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Query In my reading of WP:FICT, I see no exception to the WP:A, WP:N, and WP:RS policies. Are you arguing that this article meets those guidelines?  If the consensus is it does, I will be happy to withdraw my nomination. --Nonstopdrivel 17:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's no reason for this specific article's deletion. It's no different from the hundreds of other List of ____ Characters articles, most for series less notable than MÄR. - The Norse 22:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - As the points of argument fall solely on this article's failure to keep up with plot summary, source of citations and coverage criterias, remedial solutions are not entirely unavailable. It's still more preferable than deleting the article, which would bring about negative consequences. For the moment I will try to search for more sources. Profet 666 03:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, the crux of my argument, as I stated very explicitly, is that this article does not assert notability—and that there is essentially no evidence of notability to be found online. The vast preponderance of references to this show are on fansites and an occasional programming guide mention.  This has been an ongoing issue since at least March 2007, and still little or no work has been done to rectify this fundamental flaw. --Nonstopdrivel 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Observation: Though it may not be germane to the AfD process, I would like to point out that to this point, the only respondents to this AfD have been regular contributors to this article (it is, in fact, these very editors I quoted in my rationale for deletion). Does anyone not closely connected with this article have any objective input that would be useful in obtaining a consensus? --Nonstopdrivel 04:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have not contributed anything to the article under consideration or to the article on the show and in fact had never heard of either until this AFD. Otto4711 12:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

First, let us establish some facts: Marchen Awakens Romance is an internationally published 15 volume book series, which has been adapted for television, has an upcoming sequel series, is by an established author, published by notable companies and in a notable magazine. As such, there is no question of the series's notability under Notability (books). The page we are directly considering is a sub-article of the MAR page, split off from the main summary article solely due to length concerns and in accordance with Wikipedia's stylistic guidelines, such as WP:LENGTH and Summary style. As such, it is a part of a larger topic and can for all intents be considered as a sub-section of the main MAR page, with its division into a separately titled page being purely nominal. Lists of characters are an accepted section for articles on Wikipedia on works of fiction that are sufficiently complex that descriptions of their casts will be of encyclopedic assistance to our readers. With these things established, the question now becomes whether the Chess Pieces are a sufficiently notable group within MAR that their description will aid readers in understanding the subject. It does. Keep. --tjstrf talk 07:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 06:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully my modest offering will sufficiently satisfy your demands of outside input, Nonstop.
 * Keep -- this is far more than merely a list of characters, and appears sourced -- SockpuppetSamuelson 11:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The deadline of its deletion being... ? I want to have more time for the reference sections Profet 666 04:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletion debates last more or less 5 days, so June 29-30 is the projected closing date, but there's no hurry since so far everyone but the nominator says it should be kept. --tjstrf talk 04:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, it is essentually a subpage of MAR, which is notable enough (and long enough) to warrant a subpage to cover this set of characters together. John Vandenberg 05:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added several references for the page and there's more to come. Try them out with a translation tool. Profet 666 03:26, 28 June 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.