Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Ridden


 * 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   delete. A "keep" argument based on the availability of sources is only strong if you actually present the sources in the discussion. Some arguments on both sides (e.g. JNN, sold X items, etc.) have been disregarded. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Ridden

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely non-notable character that originated from a Gundam technical manual, but never in any of the televisions series, films, OVAs, or novels. Only other appearance was in a non-notable video game and a one-shot manga chapter. Has no affect on the series's plot line. Inappropriate to merge. Disputed Prod. Farix (Talk) 02:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 02:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He is found in multiple sources, and is a Zeon greatest OYW pilot. He was featured in his own one shot manga Kidou Senshi Gundam MSV Senki Johnny Ridden, and the first chapter of another manga.  "ACES IN A YEAR WAR" Episode 1 :: Crimson Lightening - Major Johnny Ridden.  He has also been featured in manga dedicated to other pilots.  There is a toy based on this character.  He was featured prominently in a Gundam video game released for the PS2.   D r e a m Focus  04:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bring in the reliable references Dream Focus. People won't vote keep by just trusting your words --KrebMarkt 06:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources for what? If you Google for a few seconds, you can find the manga he is in, and places to buy his toys.   D r e a m Focus  14:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources that demonstrate that the character can passes WP:NOTE. --Farix (Talk) 16:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete If the subject of this article is notable, then the article needs to reflect that.  It does not.  It cites no sources, and it is otherwise poorly written.   I doubt very much the subject matter is notable, but like I said, even if it is, you'd never know it from anything in this article. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mobile Suit Variations. Although the target article is very poorly written, I can provide sources from sales figures of the series from a primary source(Bandai's sals figures published in 1987) and two other secondary sources about its model success(Dengeki Hobby and Hobby Japan, though this will take some time since MSV is a model series that is quite old and going through the archive takes time.) and a secondary source(Adult's Gundam prefect version by Nikkei Business Publication) claiming its notability.(all of these are talking about the target)  Since Johnny Ridden is originally from this model series, merging(and greatly trimming) would be appropriate.  If !vote counts my oppinion at no consensus, it is fine to count it as a delete, since I lean towards that side.  However, I hope trimming and merging works on my proposal.  MythSearchertalk 06:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * I don't know, we only have one person trying to save the article and did not do so in the pass week or so. Is relisting really necessary? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  14:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I can not find any reliable references for notability, even if this character is mentioned in manga and such there should be some un-univerisal style info on it which there is not.--Knowledgekid87 (Talk) 14:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT Uhmm, I'd just like to make a comment, not only about the article / character in question but most of the character articles in the Universal Century characters template (which can be found at the bottom of the discussed article's page). I have a hard time believing they are all notable. In fact, about 80-90% of the articles don't even have a single source on their page (INCLUDING THE ONE UP FOR DISCUSSION!!!!!). Unless the articles can be proven notable by Wiki standards, and they get some sources, they all should be deleted (or more accurately merged into a single large article). I don't see how people are even arguing to keep an article without a single reference cited in the article itself. It doesn't matter how important you think the article is, you have to prove notability by adding reliable sources or the article gets deleted. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles are kept or destroyed by consensus of whoever is around at the time, and the personal opinions of the closing administrator. That's why character articles for vast numbers of G.I. Joe, Transformers, and comic book characters exist, most of which have absolutely no coverage anywhere.  They are well defended by fans.  Manga and anime just have fewer people participating in the AFDs, and thus even characters featured in multiple fictional works and merchandising like this one, are sometimes deleted.   D r e a m Focus  14:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If it didn't sell well the first time, would they release a second version?  Searching the Japanese Amazon for his name in Japan will probably yield more results.  Not everything he was in might've been translated yet.   D r e a m Focus  14:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is irrelevant to passing WP:NOTE and doesn't establish notability. --Farix (Talk) 16:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Having good sales figure does not necessarily be notable. Trust me, I have way more sources than you can imagine, I live in HK and have most Japanese sources from Gundam Century to Gundam Officials to most recent books like one stating individual weapons and protective gears of MSs.  I even got one dedicated to comparing OYW with WWII, one going for psycological analysis of the characters of MS Gundam to Z and ZZ.  If I am saying a character cannot meet notability of wikipedia, it is very likely that it is extremely hard for anyone who do not have their own archive of sources to find sources that tell of a character's notability that meets wikipedia's standard. MythSearchertalk 18:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually being a bestseller helps most bestselling novels survive AFD, even without any reviews of them anywhere. But far less people participate in the AFD for manga, so the results are different.   D r e a m Focus  14:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I am stating the model sales figures, not a novel or manga release, so it is actually worse. It is not doing much better than other similar items, which most are selling pretty well at the time.  And of course, it sold much less than Char Aznable's MSs and the cannon fodder Zakus.  Also, having bestseller figures usually means it will have sources, and the article is likely to improve.  If it is not improved in a fairly reasonable amount of time, the same reasoning is not likely to be endorse on the 2nd or 3rd AfD process.   —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  16:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - just because a fan exists somewhere doesn't make this character notable or encyclopedic. - Josette (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Completely non-notable. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 07:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither WP:PERNOM nor WP:JNN are valid reasons for deletion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with the editor who makes the nomination and with what that editor has to say is perfectly justifiable. (I think you have been reminded of this before) - Josette (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not when made by an account whose stated agenda is to remove as many articles as possible and literally just rapid fire copy and pastes "per nom" style of non-arguments across multiple afDs, including multiple ones in under a minute without every actually even reading the nominations. The account in question has NEVER argued to keep, said he never will argue to keep, and said it is his mission to delete as many articles as possible because he thinks having 2 million articles is too many, i.e. just indiscriminately wants to delete in any and every AfD.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem, we have just as many or more editors willing to !vote "keep" for every piece of crap article that comes along. I don't see you attacking their reasoning. - Josette (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They, like me, at least occasionally argue to delete and actually make edits to the articles in question, discuss specific sources, etc. If we are to have actual adult academic discussions that we need to discuss specifics and consider all options available, not just make drive by comments.  And you will not persuade me of anything if you use words like "crap" of "cruft" to describe the work volunteers put into attempting to expand this comprehensive reference guide.  In any event, where have you checked for sources for this article and what kind of results did you get?  What options for merge locations are there as well?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have been warned about disparaging the comments of others before. I very seldom participate in an AFD, so therefore you can bet I have done my homework when I do. Most of my work has been in the actual writing of articles. Have you seen what type of articles I write? I owe you no explanation. - Josette (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So where have you looked for sources for this article and what have you found? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:27, 9 August 2009 (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.