Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of RahXephon staff


 * 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 delete g7 per author request below. NawlinWiki 04:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

List of RahXephon staff

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Listcruft and Fancruft. --Sterdehn 11:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: I swear we need something like a WikiCredits or something. Our film, TV show, video game, etc. articles are odd for missing staff lists, which are quite notable and encyclopedic.--SeizureDog 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Surely not fancruft - that seems rather uncivil to me. I'm not too fond of the level of detail though.... The sound engineer even? --GunnarRene 22:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is not IMDB. -- Whpq 16:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No delete - this staff list is take from the Anime News Network. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I feel staff lists are necessary for this article. They are important and essential to the RahXephon article. --Sjones23 20:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or possibly merge with the cast list. It's not an indiscriminate collection of information, but rather a pertinent list of (*gasp*) out of universe information on the series. --tjstrf talk 21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with a bit of merge. Clearly the most important people (creator, voice artists, producers, etc) should be listed in the main article.  But storyboarders and PR people don't need to be included.  Wikipedia doesn't need to be a mirror of IMDB.  Wickethewok 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as a bad faith nomination (this article has only recently been created) and as other users have cited, staff lists are most certainly quite notable, encyclopedic and also essential in further expanding the process involved in its production and development. It should be noted that Sterdehn's only edits (which are three) were in setting up this AfD; therefore, I highly suspect Sterdehn to be a sockpuppet used by someone who does not want to have this AfD tied to their real account. ··· 巌流 ? · Talk to Gan ryuu 21:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - sockpuppet or not, the fact remains that the article is just a huge list of credits which is way more detail than needed for an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq 21:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - I am fully aware of that and I strongly disagree with Whpq's recent comments. --Sjones23 21:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm.... all right. I will help fix up this article and use the cleanup with Ganryuu. I also strongly disagree with that article being in the AfD. We should use the scriptwriters, storyboards and episode directors for the list of episodes, per User:GunnarRene's ideas in the talk page. --Sjones23 22:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. (I'm too closely involved in this to render a decision.) On the one hand, we do have tons of articles on actors and acresses, and they typically have a list of works, as they should; start-class articles also commonly feature some kind of staff/cast list. On the other hand, our other featured articles on meda works only list the most significant cast and staff. Will this thing ever evolve beyond a list of staff? And what then happens with all those start-class articles on works that mainly consist of staff and cast/character lists? Does the information somehow stop being unencyclopedic when the article grows? The avenues for keeping I see now are
 * Either become innovative with this list and make it a featured staff list in some way.
 * Making this article the "Production of RahXephon" article, necessitating more prose content.
 * I'm afraid I'm too busy right now to improve this all on my own, so I propose moving it into somebody's user space if it's deleted. --GunnarRene 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, that is a perfect idea and a good idea, GunnarRene. I'll do it. --Sjones23 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't edit RahXephon much, so I don't feel right voting, but I have to agree with the delete, per above, as well as per other comments I've made about staff lists in the past. Also, if it was copied from AnimeNewsNetwork, would it be so hard to just link to ANN and let people look there or Google for staff lists if they really cared about exactly who drew that Background Character number 24 in episode 9, or whatever? Nique talk 00:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I strongly disagree against your comments, Nique and I am terribly sorry, but staff lists are necessary as per Ganryuu's statements. Sjones23 01:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Staff lists are boring, not aesthetic, and offer no real useful information. It's a list, and it's extremely crufty for a list at that. Nique talk 01:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that, Nique, and I, unfortunately, will be really heartbroken if this is deleted. It will not be so hard to find. I am strictly opposed to that. --Sjones23 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. If someone wants to find out who the color coordination assistant for this particular Japanese cartoon series was, they can consult IMDB. Krimpet 02:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wiki is not a directory of TV credits of all and sundry who have participated in making any given film or product. The more important staff members may warrant a mention in the RahXephon article, but the rest are of absolutely no encyclopaedic interest whatsoever, paper or otherwise. Ohconfucius 06:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am really suffering mental breakdown on this deletion right now. I am fully aware of the guidelines. I will keep GunnarRene's advice earlier. We should make sure that it contains commentary or additional context, as what TKD pointed out to me on my talk page. My ears are unfortunately burning right now and I am upset. I don't believe it should be deleted. Listing every single staff member is not necessarily needed, that is what the imdb and ANN are for. I will consult IMDB as soon as possible. I will put the really important staff members per Ohconfucius' idea. --Sjones23 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All the 'really important' staff members can easily be fit into the appropriate sections of the main article, making this article superfluous. If this article were trimmed to the bare essentials of the list, it would be a stub. Also, this page isn't for commenting about how terribly upset you are and how your ears are burning in your furious sadness, it's for discussion about why the article should or should not be deleted. Nique talk 20:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with that idea, Nique. Thanks for the comment. I will remove them and add them to the appropriate sections for good. --Sjones23 20:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: I deleted the main staff members and placed them in the appropiate sections for good as per Nique's request. --Sjones23 20:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also removed the impotant staff members from the movie and I will move them as per Nique's request as well as deleted the entire article for good. Everyone, Thanks for all the help we can get. --Sjones23 20:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment &mdash; this might qualify under CSD guidelines as a creator request. &mdash; Deckiller 21:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well written and agreed. I moved the really important staff members for both the TV series and movie back to the main article for the greater good of the editors. I personally agree with all of the comments. --Sjones23 21:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment to CSD for creator request you have to put up a tag (("db-userreq")) because blanking the page doesn't delete the page.  Darth  griz 98 18:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DarthGriz. I put the "db-userreq" tag and all of the page has been deleted for good. Sjones23 22:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: According to my talk page, listing full staff lists, without additional context or a commentary, probably constitutes trivia as what User:TKD said. That info is one of the reason why I removed the full staff list from the article and put the really important and really essential staff members in the appropriate section of the article. I agree with Wickethewok that the main staff members are in the main article. I put the CSD tag in there since I deleted the entire article for good. Thanks for everyone's help. Sjones23 02:40, 18 March 2007 (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.