Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key (company) visual novel character lists


 * 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 Speedy Keep. AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator, and there are no delete !votes. Per consensus below, no prejudice against renominating each of the articles for deletion in separate discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Key (company) visual novel character lists

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

These lists of characters are not independently notable from their main series, as shown through their available secondary sources. Alone, they lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) They could be deleted or redirected as they are all adequately covered in their parent articles' characters sections (which are all GA-rated). Some of the character lists have been tagged for cleanup for eight years. I consider these painfully straightforward redirect/merge cases, but they can also be deleted. czar 01:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  01:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  czar  01:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect or merge Notability isn't inherited, too many character articles believe that to be the case. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 02:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd argue that WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply here as these are not independent subjects, but subarticles split off from their parents to avoid the visual novel pages from becoming too large. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  10:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Compromise for Keep The character article Ayu Tsukimiya is incredibly well sourced and it's even a GA. I'm sure the character lists could easily be given their own reception sections. If so, then I'll say Keep alone. If it is not possible then Merge it.Tintor2 (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I will start with List of Kanon characters which has Ayu Tsukimiya linked to it. Reviewers from Japanator, THEM anime reviews, and Anime News Network give characters reviews along with the series, these reviews include artwork, and relation to the story. The effort has not been made to go through these reviews to see what can be picked up, I already have come up with a source for example with mention of the characters from Little Busters: . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself the effort hasn't been made. I did due diligence, now you AGF and do yours. That citation is about the episode, not the characters. You'll need to explain why the characters are independently notable from the series so as to necessitate its own page. czar  02:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In that source the reviewer references Kyousuke as being a "nasty" character towards the end of the series, this would count as plot information from a notable outside opinion. Im not trying to put you down here I just wish you could discuss first is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment These seem to be part of an aggressive redirecting process of character articles by the nominator. I make no comment on their motives or faith but I feel they are being rather too literal with the guidelines here. Character articles have long been considered acceptable if they are of the ensemble "cast", chances are any reviews of the material will discuss the characters so notability arguments are not as straightforward as suggested. The process should be to discuss if WP:BOLD is objected to, not to take them straight to AFD as this may have further repercussions on hundreds of articles. I'm not happy with the bundling of these articles together, they should be considered on their own merits as i'm willing to bet that some of them are easier to source than others. Ultimately I feel that the discussion over what qualifies a character list as a worthwhile article should be taking place at WP:Anime (and possibly at other wiki projects) and not through the bold mass redirecting or AFD of normally accepted lists articles. Attempt to set a consensus through constructive discussion rather than take it straight to AFD at the first objection. Also, AFD isn't clean up, which is just as much part of the arguement as the debate over notability. SephyTheThird (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a Wikipedia-wide discussion. It isn't for the Anime project alone to determine that character lists without significant coverage apart from the series get a pass on the general notability guideline. I'm happy to de-bundle any of these lists if they're seen as significantly different from the rest, but as of now, I don't see how any would be. czar  02:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you check the archives I know we have had this song and dance at least once before. Yes consensus can change but I would first check what arguments were raised on past discussions, and how you believe things have changed since then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is part of an effort by WP:VG, but that effort is based around the fact that most of these character list articles are poorly sourced and violating WP:INU in a way that they're so heavily focused on plot summary type info that there's little left once it's removed. I'm not part of these efforts, but most of the time when I'm look into the related nominations, they're warranted, so I wouldn't let these "efforts" confuse the issue - there's serious notability issues here. Sergecross73   msg me  02:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am fine with providing sources but I agree with Sephy on how this was bundled. Each one of these articles are a separate entity. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fair too, and probably the only way forward for the people in favor of deletion, judging by the comments so far... Sergecross73   msg me  03:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I can compromise on redirects for List of Air characters, and List of Clannad characters as they contain little to no references. As for the rest, seeing that they do have some sources to them they would be ideal to expand upon first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Character lists are accepted spin-outs of their parent article. Their notability is tied to the notability of their parent article, the work of fiction. There is plenty of past precedent that character lists, such as Articles for deletion/List of Digimon Adventure characters, Articles for deletion/List of Kodomo no Jikan characters, Articles for deletion/List of Jormungand characters, Articles for deletion/List of Rozen Maiden characters, Articles for deletion/List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure characters, Articles for deletion/List of Initial D characters and teams, Articles for deletion/List of Haré+Guu characters. The rare cases where character lists were not kept is because it was duplicated by another list, merged into a related list, or whose parent article was not notable. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Let's just be clear, these character lists (and others like them) are simply poorly sourced. Even for something like List of Clannad characters which has 30 or so of characters could be cleaned up and well sourced if reviews that discuss these characters were gleamed for such information. Clannad was made into 2 anime series, an anime film, and the original game was just recently released in English by Sekai Project, so there's no way that enough sourced material could not be collected in order to improve that article, even if you had to remove 90% of the plot bloat. That would still leave voice actors, cursory character descriptions, and any reception to those characters that could all be sourced if someone put in the work. And all of that, I believe, could easily be applied to all of the other articles on this AFD because all of them have anime adaptations which will always have reviews that discuss character interactions and reception based on those characters. If these articles are guilty of anything, it's plotbloat, but as the saying goes, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when there is at least some relevant, notability-establishing content that could be added if someone made the effort. Need I remind that Wikipedia does not have a deadline?--  十  八  03:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Looking at them, I don't think we need plots for every branch of every game/adaptation. The Little Busters page is especially guilty of this, IMO. --Wirbelwind( ヴィルヴェルヴィント ) 06:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It would take me at least a week but I could add a reception section for Little Busters. As I mentioned before I know they talk about character artwork/conception in reviews that can be found both online, and in magazines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not everything that has a reference needs to be in the article. At some point, it just becomes a list of mentions inside a list of characters. --Wirbelwind( ヴィルヴェルヴィント ) 15:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Anything that isn't in-universe information would be beneficial as it does add up. When you have different reviewers all commenting on the characters then the coverage expands. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Though if the locus of coverage remains at the series or unit level, our coverage should remain at that level too. It's a principle of proportionality. We'd need significant coverage dedicated to the characters to justify a split—otherwise it should fit within its parent. czar  15:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not all of the sources are brief mentions though, it depends on the series. I have come across sources that go into interviews with the character voice actor/actresses involved. Of course "significant coverage" is all in the beholder, I don't think there is a definition here on Wikipedia what counts as enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per TheFarix and Juhachi - I'd personally argue that fictional character lists are subarticles split off from their parents to avoid the video novel pages from becoming too cluttered; thus, they aren't stand-alone articles in the strictest sense and WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't apply. Instead, their notability is tied to the notability of the visual novels themselves. (I will admit this opinion isn't based the strongest on policy, though there are numerous examples of previous such articles being kept to set precedent, hence the 'weak' part of my !vote). Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  10:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Mass nomination of so many articles is disruptive and doesn't give any of them a fair chance. AFD is not for deciding policy, and the policy has long been to allow spinoff articles for those that get too large. Opencooper (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * With all these keeps, I'd be very interested in the sources voters are using to substantiate their positions. czar  15:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be better if this nomination gets "snow kept without prejudice towards re-nomination" and then you try nominating one or two of the worst offenders separately. Right now, everyone's commenting more in regards to "lets not set a precedent to support a mass redirect". If nominated separately, I think people would give a more detailed look at the merits of the individual lists, whether it be !voting to delete, or digging up some better sourcing for a stronger "keep" !vote. Sergecross73   msg me  16:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like the only way forward, though I hope it won't be similarly brigaded. Withdrawn—requesting closure per Serge's comment above. czar  22:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. List of characters articles are spun out when the number of characters become too unwieldy for the main article to handle, and also when they cover multiple titles of a franchise that has multiple Wikipedia articles. Just as with List of (manga/anime) volumes and List of (manga/anime) episodes. However, each of these titles should be reviewed and aggressively filtered to list only major and important characters, especially for video game franchises on who is playable and who are the main villains. If after cleanup the list is small enough to merge, then merge it back. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I've added WP:TELEVISION to this discussion as they often deal with television series that have huge lists of characters and whether to spin them off. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:37, 14 March 2016 (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.