Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Initial D characters and teams


 * 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 19:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Initial D characters and teams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A giant list of in-universe detail, all completely unsourced (original research), with WAY too much detail (a detailed table for every character!)

effectively WP:ALLPLOT, no commentary, critique, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep/Fix - Strictly speaking, the "too much detail" argument doesn't warrant deletion, despite the fact that it's an accurate assessment of the article.  As a rule of thumb list pages like this exist to provide relevant information that is too voluminous to fit in the main article page.  It's certainly got some serious issues in its current form, but if someone would like to be bold and fix the article, that would really be the best course of action.  Deleting an article that addresses a notable topic or appropriately supplements another article on a notable topic because it is written poorly is somewhat of a nuclear option that should be reserved until some attempts to fix the issue have been made.   Any statements about the series can be sourced at least to an episode or publication volume, and extreneous information can be removed easily enough. If attempting to fix the article proves to render it unencyclopedic or no longer useful/notable, I would agree with removal at that point but insofar it appears that no attempt at cleaning up some of the issues above have been maintained or even raised on the article's talk page. --  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 20:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT notwithstanding, this article is better served starting from scratch. Nothing is sourced, everything is in universe. Sourcing things to episodes is problematic as that is a WP:PRIMARY source, and analysis of what that primary says is WP:OR. We make exceptions for that for brief explanations of the plot etc, but in this case that would be 100% of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Granted it's not intended to be an end-all list, looking at WP:DEL, I don't see anything that justifies outright deletion because an article is "too far gone." The notability of the subject matter doesn't seem to be in contention.   Perhaps the correct course of action is to replace the existing article contents with the first new version of "starting from scratch," but deleting the article is neither necessary nor justified to serve that purpose.  The AFD page does suggest such a course of action, and unless there are concerns about the notability of the article, bringing it down a barebones list of details (names, perhaps cars, some basic role in the series that can be easily cited to an episode/volume).  WP:PRIMARY does address this, as "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."  By that virtue, which is used in almost every quality article covering a work of fiction, the factual statements that would make up the vast majority of the article are perfectly acceptable to be sourced via citations to the episodes and volumes.  The biggest concern lies with the fact that no one has even made a token effort to fix the article, aside from a drive-by posting of a template at the top of the page without discussion.  --  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 21:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would question the ability of a normal viewer without specialized knowledge to glean the bulk of the car details (specific part numbers?) from watching/reading the show. Futher it is well accepted that some WP:ALLPLOT issue move into copyright infringement, especially when unaccompanied by any other content.  regarding deletion policy, I personally think #14 would apply, there is a risk of #2 (as mentioned just previously) and as #8 notability is not inherited, the characters themselves are likely not notable (Any sources discussing them directly not in the context of the show/books?, any allusions to those characters in unrelated works?)  #7 is also a possibility as it seems the only sources are WP:PRIMARY (which also lends towards notability). WP:NOTCLEANUP, but I think we are very close to the "no usable content" clause of that guideline.


 * However, if you are open to blanking the page and starting from scratch, I would be willing to withdraw my nomination. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On further review of the wikiproject videogames guidelines, I believe this does not meet them.


 * it is important not to clutter an article with a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia. A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: If the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers.
 * WP:GAMECRUFT
 * #1 Non-notable articles and spinouts: Avoid creating new articles on non-notable topics. A notable topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable.
 * #5 A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting. Information beyond that is unnecessary and should be removed, as articles should focus on the real-world elements of a topic, such as creation and reception
 * #6 (debatable) Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are considered inappropriate. Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.Gaijin42 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  Gaijin42 (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 04:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 04:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 04:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Needs massive cleanup but AFD is not for that. Initial D is a multi-media franchise, a list of characters is reasonable to include as it would be far too large in a franchise article. --M ASEM (t) 05:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, fixup, and Rename to List of Initial D characters, the teams bit is not needed but big character lists are commonplace and acceptable on wikipedia and can be sourced through Japanese sources as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename per Knowledgekid. Character lists are appropriate for large works. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Listing the characters of a notable series is a common and long accepted practice. This is a long running popular manga, and has spawned numerous animated series.   D r e a m Focus  01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I've just spent all day rewriting the whole article so it is more in line with your guidelines. 130.220.8.244 (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but with cleanup and moving to List of Initial D characters - As it stands now, the current Initial D article's a mess (a shame since it used to be my favorite show, and m.o.v.e's music was what led me to like J-Pop and discover artists like Mami Kawada and KOTOKO), so merging back will just be a burden. Just some dedication and more sources are needed for the article to be cleaned up. However, per Knowledgekid87, the "and teams" part of the article sound awkward and thus needs to go. The teams can serve as subsection, however. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:24, 26 January 2013 (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.