Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air characters


 * 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. Two of the "keep" opinions do not advance any arguments and are discounted.  Sandstein  21:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

List of Air characters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

These series characters, as a set, are not independently notable from the main series, as shown through their lack of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) A merge or redirect to the parent article's character section should suffice. The parent article is a GA and sufficiently covers the characters. czar 01:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  czar  01:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  czar  01:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  01:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete/merge Woo, this again. Though in this case, the article has one source, which has a tiny fraction of what's on the wiki page. --Wirbelwind( ヴィルヴェルヴィント ) 02:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge I remember seeing the English dub anime release cast for this like here and there were less than a dozen characters to cover, including the guest appearances (Girl B). The video game lists 9 characters, so I think this can be integrated easily back into the main and not have to be hacked too much to mess up GA. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Character lists are valid additions to articles. Splitting articles when they are too long is an accepted practice. Merging or not merging or cutting the article down are all things that have nothing to do with AfD. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We only split long sections when the sourcing warrants it. You haven't mentioned any sourcing or deletion policy that would warrant "keep"ing this list. czar  00:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – This article is presently at 26kb and Air (visual novel) is presently at 60kb. Note that at WP:SIZERULE, it states "> 60 kB    Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". North America1000 10:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The main article is already a GA and the "split" list in question doesn't have a single source. If the characters needed to be covered in more depth (based on the sourcing), the article shouldn't have passed GA review. czar  13:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames  ( talk   contribs ) 06:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC) If the size can be cut down, Merge and redirect otherwise Keep Sheepythemouse (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge and redirect, but it's too lengthy for a minor topic. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now If cleanup can be done then great, if not then there is nothing from stopping another AfD in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On what grounds? It still has no sources. czar  11:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. A list of in-game characters without any sources fails WP:GNG. Just because WP:ITEXISTS does not mean it should stay. The main article might've passed GA, but this long, unsourced and trivial list wouldn't have made that possible. Wikipedia articles, also "list of [x] characters", have to be properly sourced. Now, looking through WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, using search terms like "air characters", "key air characters", "air kano misuzu minagi", etc., does not bring up any in-depth sources. I also urge other editors in this discussion to look up possible sources first, before voting keep. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That isn't a good place to look google-wise, if info does exist then it would be from interviews with the cast describing their likes/dislikes of the characters ect... Popularity rankings from magazines would also count towards WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , why wouldn't that be a good place to look? Air originated as a visual novel, a type of video game. The reliable sources listed at WP:VG/RS also discuss Japanese video games. As Air is from 2000, why would you disregard websites? soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, with the caveat that sources should be added and any content that can't be sourced should be removed. First, I disagree with Czar's claim in the deletion rationale that this list of characters needs to be "independently notable from the main series".  This is subarticle, with the idea being that it is split from the main article due to that article becoming too large.  It is not an independent subject, but a section of our coverage on the larger notable topic.  However, any content we include should certainly be backed up by reliable sources.  In this case though, there is plenty of information in reliable sources to write about the characters.  For example Anime News Network's coverage of the anime talks about the characters in general while providing details on specific characters (e.g.,  describes the characters as being a collection of usual stereotypical roles for such a series, and mentions details like Michiru attacking Yukito a lot,  talks about Yukito and Misuzu's personalities, etc.).  In addition to English language sources, there are certainly Japanese sources available (e.g., Hitoshi Doi's database lists Dengeki G's Magazine as having an issue with significant coverage of the game, which would likely include character profiles or interviews with the voice actors in relation to the characters).  All together there seems like there is plenty of content available for someone to write a sourced list article covering the characters, and the problem here is just that the current list needs a lot of work to add in sources and trim anything that can't easily be sourced.  But that is a matter of cleanup, and doesn't require deletion. Calathan (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We are concerned not with what likely exists but what sources materially exist. We also don't spin-out content unless it has sufficient reason (general notability guideline) to stand on its own—otherwise we summarize it in its parent article. When we keep character articles, we assert that the characters have enough sources to be considered notable separate from the media/series itself. czar  00:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe you what you have said is wrong, both on policy and on precedent. Articles are split based on size per WP:Article size, which does not mention notability of subtopics.  Past discussions have kept similar lists based on the principle that it is valid to spin off content when the parent article becomes too long, without the subtopic needing to be separately notable (see Farix's comment in the bundled AFD you recently made for some examples).  When similar lists have been deleted in the past, it has usually been because there isn't anything that can be written that can be backed up with reliable sources.  Furthermore, I did give some sources above that say something about the characters.  A simple list could easily be written by taking the official character page (linked in the article) and supplementing that with some reception and comments from reviews and the like.  If that list ends up short enough, then it would make sense to merge it back with the parent article, but deletion doesn't help with that.  Anyway, my point was that you don't seem to be even attempting to find sources and are ignoring any sources that exist. Calathan (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * AGF. Don't discount my research. Your links are (1) a DVD review, (2) a paywalled link, and (3) a listing of potential articles with no sign of depth of content, so let's not get haughty. Every page that can be brought to AfD is subject to the general notability guideline, which means having sources. That's policy. If an article is in need of splitting, it means there is enough secondary source coverage to warrant the split. I could write 50 kb about the plot of any one of these visual novels—it doesn't mean that then would warrant a split from the main article on length alone. We cover topics in proportion to their secondary sourcing. Can't have it both ways that sourcing somehow isn't needed for character articles and that sources must exist somewhere out there—let's see them if this topic is so prominent and keepable. czar  04:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to replace the "fast" with "www" in the second link (I'm a subscriber to the site, so I have access to a faster server, but all the content is available to everyone). I've fixed that link.  Anyway, I still disagree with you that additional sources are needed to show notability, but regardless, I've also been arguing that there are sources.  If reviews talk about the characters, they can be used to source the article, and also are independent coverage that shows notability.  It might not be enough to write the entire article, but once notability is shown, then reliable but non-independent sources like the official character page can be used to fill in more content.  And why am I supposed to believe that you searched for sources, when you didn't mention any of them that I'm finding?  You didn't mention the reviews on ANN (there are more than the one I linked to ), or that other article (the one I've now fixed the link to), or mention that there there was magazine coverage (such as in Dengeki G's, or Newtype USA, which a Google search is telling me had an article on the anime in its November 2004 issue).  Even if you don't have access to the magazine sources, you should still bring them up in case anyone else has them.  Also about the Dengeki G's issue, suggesting it doesn't have depth of content when the series is the cover feature seems absurd.  How could they write a major feature, including multiple pages about the voice actors for the characters, without talking about the characters (Hitoshi Doi's database is a seiyuu database, so he only mentions the pages that involve the voice actors)? Calathan (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I want to mention so that it doesn't get lost in all that I've written above, I'm completely fine with merging a shortened list into the main article, and I'm definitely not arguing that the article should be left as is with long paragraphs of unsourced content. What I'm saying is that a sourced list of some sort can be made, and seems like useful content, so it should be kept somewhere, not deleted outright. Calathan (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs to be said that when the reviews are about a work and not a single component, we cover proportionally by writing articles about the work and not its components unless there is secondary sourcing to justify such a split. With the above reviews, I see no reason why the characters couldn't be covered within the scope of the article. Whether we want to merge unsourced material (and how much of it) is something for other people to decide. czar  06:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - The entire list is just a collection of extraneous plot details best left to Wikia. Together, the plot section of the main article, character section of the main article, and other articles like the episode list can provide enough of a general overview that a separate list is unnecessary. Any relevant reception on the characters themselves can fit within the main article without requiring forty paragraphs of plot detail. TTN (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is still questionable for its own solidly notable article. SwisterTwister   talk  00:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable standing by its own.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 17 April 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.