Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciel (Tsukihime) (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 05:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ciel (Tsukihime)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article has not improved at all since the previous AfD, failing WP:V and WP:N still, while also containing a dash of WP:OR. 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. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for the very same reasons:
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   —Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect 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. - Mgm|(talk) 22:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep 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 GNG  relevant--the purpose of Wikipedia 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.DGG (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 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 User talk:Kung Fu Man. Neither asserts any notability. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 06:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to List of Tsukihime characters... I will note that Tsukihime and this character appear to be popular in Japan. 76.66.194.58 (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources for the character itself? That was mentioned in the last AfD but no sources were even added.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Popularity means really nothing unless there are sources to substantiate that. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 06:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge both – to List of Tsukihime characters. No adequate assertion of notability for either. See User talk:Kung Fu Man. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 06:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep 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 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 Wikipedia 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. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  11:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify that my "keep" comments refer to Ciel only. The villain, while important to the story, is appropriate for merger. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done


 * Delete - excessive fictional details, no demonstration of the subject's importance outside the game. Not particularly keen on List of Tsukihime characters, either. We don't need to know what each character's blood type is. Marasmusine (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, given the cultural importance of blood types in Japan, 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... —Quasirandom (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a major character who has appeared in several different media. As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Characters Laurent paris (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 inherited.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 incriminated parts. And again, I see the loss but what is the gain in deleting this article? Laurent paris (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 last nomination without improvement. Like it or not, simply being a "major character" in a title does not entitle them to have an article on Wikipedia. The information can be merged and restored easily if information turns up at a later time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Except this is a nomination for deletion and who will remember where to find the lost informations? And it's a major character in several titles. Again, I see the loss but what is the gain in deleting the article, as opposed to leaving it alone until someone improves it? Laurent paris (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 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.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 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? Laurent paris (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 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.
 * This isn't destruction, it's cleanup. It happens. Please actually bother reading policies before you lecture on what "WP is".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 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? Laurent paris (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2008 (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.