Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilgamesh (Fate/stay night)


 * 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   merge to List of Fate/stay night characters. I will place afdmergeto templates on all of these articles. Knowing this type of close, though, I will revisit them in a few weeks and redirect those that haven't been merged. Black Kite 10:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Gilgamesh (Fate/stay night)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Another large AfD, however again all the related articles share the very same issues. All of the nominated articles fail WP:V and WP:N, and have for a very long term. Upon research, sources have only turned up for a few of the characters alone, and they are excluded from this nomination. Salvageable information can be combined into a list, however given the number of merge targets any such proposal is best handled here than via singular articles. Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages as noted above:
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   —Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * question please explain your nomination a little further--are any of these principal characters? If so, those ones should be nominated separately, since there is a considerable feeling which in many cases has reached consensus that principal characters are appropriate for article whether or not they meet the current formal requirements. The merge would in any case not best be handled here--if they are in the same work or group of works a common target could be found, or a centralized discussion organized. DGG (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/True Assassin and User talk:Kung Fu Man. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 20:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge all – to List of Fate/stay night characters. Yes, there's not a whole lot of mergeable material, but there's not entries for a majority of these characters. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 20:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect all - These pages should get a very selective merge, taking the few verifiable statements from each article and placing it into List_of_Fate/stay_night_characters. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge all – to List of Fate/stay night characters, selectively as Kraftlos mentions. If absolutely nothing about the characters is verifiable, it can be verified they exist and all redirected to the main article. - Mgm|(talk) 22:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge all relying on Sepiroth who apparently knows this fiction. By merge all, I mean merge all content that can be sourced from either secondary sources of the fiction itself. If we don't agree on how much to merge, I'm not sure this is the place to discuss it in detail. It is impossible for the characters of a fiction with a role in the story to be completely impossible to source. They appear in certain places, and do certain things, and this can be described from the work itself and thus verified.DGG (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Main antagonist of the two series (Fate/stay night and Fate/zero) and too notable as Archer (Fate/stay night) and Saber (Fate/stay night): your signature move, Gate of Babylon (shooting countless swords as arrows), are mimic in many series. Because are two differents series, I cannot recommend merge into (mistaken) list. And another characters, I recomend merge each character in your each series. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. -WP:N None of the characters you listed have any evidence of significant coverage in independent sources, thus they are not notable, as you claim.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge all: I'm persuaded by that perhaps there's a way to salvage this content, although most of these articles are clearly non-notable for a lack of reliable third-party sources. A few are borderline, which can only be determined with more effort and searching. May as well merge. No prejudice against further action based on new evidence, be that a split back out into multiple articles, or outright deletion. Randomran (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Gilgamesh, the primary antagonist of the series. Merge the rest into List of Fate/stay night characters. Edward321 (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that he is the primary antagonist has no bearing on whether he qualifies for a stand-alone article. The only relevant policy is WP:N, which this character fails.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge all: Like what everyone said, there's not really a whole lot of verifiability and notability in the articles, but moreover they are all in-universe content, lacking the more important sections such as development and reception (most visual novel characters, primary or secondary, doesn't have much reception). --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  17:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect It's a big job, and as said above there may not be a great deal from the articles that should remain. But there's most likely something salvageable in there. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge all. Ok, having watched the series, most of the listed ones are secondary characters, so they don't need separate articles.  The only "main" characters are Illya and maybe Sakura, but their article lack independent reliable sources, so there's really nothing to do but to merge them as well, at least for the time being.  Just coz Gilgamesh is the main antagonist doesn't warrant a separate article. -- Highwind 888, the  Fuko Master  01:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There's no harm in keeping separate articles. Notability is very subjective and verifiability really matters when there is a contoversy. But if you merge so many articles into a single one, the resulting list will be way too long and a pain to read or it will lack the kind of information that make Wikipedia a useful and comprehensive resource in the first place. Some users should ponder what is to be gained before blindly applying wp policies. Just tag these as "unreferenced" and spend more time actually improving articles. Laurent paris (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:04, 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.