Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kodomo no Jikan 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   keep. postdlf (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

List of Kodomo no Jikan characters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Overly detailed. See info on plot length and indiscriminate collection of information and Fancruft. The information on the main page is more than enough. See main article with very in-depth character section here: Kodomo no Jikan. This is a work unreleased in English. OKNoah (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The article Kodomo no Jikan includes a list of characters as around 50% of its content, so this is unneeded duplication. If appropriate any extra material on characters could be merged into the main article. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SPINOUT, character lists are also generally kept as they explain essential parts of the story's plot. There is also a bit about this under WP:FICT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Found here are character toy reviews, , . Character songs (This one being on billboard Japan) . Here is a link to story memoirs . Those links should be able to help expand on the characters and I only looked up Rin first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is not that they need to be expanded. This article goes beyond explaining essential parts. --OKNoah (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And those essential parts are explained in at least one of the sources I provided. The point being there is coverage on it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no problem having a list of the characters. The problem is that there are two lists of characters -- one in the main article, and one here. These two lists should be merged. Note that the guideline says (very sensibly) "there may be a separate article" for the list of characters, depending on length; in which case the list should be removed from the main article and replaced by the link to the separate article. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support expanding the plot and the removal of the character section on the main article as that is what I see on FA class articles. Character lists are on main article pages when there is no secondary article that covers the characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Character lists being spun-off are acceptable. However, the article does need some cleanup, and the character list in the Kodomo no Jikan article needs to be removed as being redundant. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether they are acceptable, but whether this particular one is acceptable. --OKNoah (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Any problems can be solved by normal editing practices. Deletion should be a last resort.  Character list are perfectly acceptable, always have been, and always will be.   D r e a m Focus  21:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the above. The issues are entirely editorial, and can be fixed through editing. Having a character list in the parent article is really down to editor preference. I personally prefer to put a link to the character link in the plot section and wikilink any character names to that article, however there isn't anything inherently wrong with how it's set up now (one is a summary, the other is not).SephyTheThird (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2014 (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.