Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rozen Maiden 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. Discussions about merging or pruning can continue on the talk page. Despite the issues with the article, there's no consensus for its deletion. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Rozen Maiden characters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A list of trivia in-universe information. All notable information has already been merged to the parent article Rozen Maiden DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is this page being deleted and marked trivial (without discussion) when it contains many characters and information from 8 volumes of 2002 manga and 9 volumes of 2008 manga. You should refer to the ja wikipedia for reference. If this is trivial, you should check out Shakugan no Shana and Toaru Majutsu no Index, both of these are also long series light novels/manga with their own character pages 116.15.155.180 (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Plot, WP:LISTN, WP:OR. The list goes against those three. When trimmed down to the essential plots, it was enough to merge into the main list. The lists you gave are in terrible shape. See (List of Fairy Tail characters) which only has essential plot points, passes List N, and doesn't have original research. Otherwise, 90% of anime manga character lists are marred by Fancruft. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at sources in Japanese on the character lists? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Current consensus is that character lists count as essential parts of the story's plot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See also: Village pump (proposals) The work of fiction revolves around the characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already merged all the important parts. These characters were pretty flat once the fancruft was removed, compared to List of Tales of Symphonia characters, List of Tales of Xillia characters, or the merged list at Tales of Graces. Don't I deserve some faith that my concision/merge is an improvement? DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 12:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You do, and I will look this over again this afternoon. I feel that some sort of guideline or essay should be in place though when it comes to handling character lists. Dragon do you have any ideas that could be put into a draft to guide future AfDs? I feel this is only the tip of the iceberg and would like to know where consensus stands on what character lists get kept and what ones go. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I usually look at the content and number of characters, and see if they can be grouped or compressed into the parent article, like what I did for this article and Tales of Graces. I created character lists for Symphonia and Xillia for ease of access since the characters are a major component of the sequel of their respective series and having repeating characters on both games would be awkward. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 13:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. No secondary sources; original research. Pburka (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or Redirect per WP:Merging. The nominator says he has merged content from the page, so the history of the page must be maintained to comply with Wikipedia's licensing policies.  I think the character list could reasonably be included in the main article, or could by better sourced and kept separate, but either way the page shouldn't be outright deleted now that some of it has been merged. Calathan (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is an appropriate spinout. The main article leaves out many of the important characters—such as mediums (other than Jun), Nori, and Saitō—and the character descriptions do not fully explain the characters or their roles in the plot. However, including this detail onto the main article would make it very long and less focused. A list allows for more detail about who each character is and their role in the plot. This list could be better organized with annalist of the character from reviewers and less ambiguation between information that comes from the anime and from the manga (with the manga taking primacy). And finally, there are previous AfDs have establish president that lists of characters are appropriate on Wikipedia, even if many of them could use better sourcing and cleanup: Articles for deletion/List of Haré+Guu characters, Articles for deletion/List of Fushigiboshi no Futagohime characters, Articles for deletion/List of Initial D characters and teams, Articles for deletion/List of Beelzebub characters, Articles for deletion/List of Digimon Xros Wars characters, Articles for deletion/List of The Familiar of Zero characters, Articles for deletion/List of Shinkyoku Sōkai Polyphonica characters, Articles for deletion/List of Space Battleship Yamato characters, Articles for deletion/List of Ojamajo Doremi characters. The only cases where a character list was deleted or merged is if the list was entirely comprised of incidental characters that have little to no baring on the plot or were extremely short and there was no possibility of expansion. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The series has practically ended. It's currently filled with trifle fancruft. I have merged all the important characters and written them in an encyclopedic manner. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Merging ALL of the info back into the main article would make that article too long. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a problem, since most of the content is unsupportable original research such as the astounding claim that "the word mercury is not used in German except for pseudo-scientific publications". Pburka (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the example you cite is very poorly worded. I think they meant red mercury when they said mercury, but one mistake is beside the point. Nothing about this list has to be notable other than that it would be acceptable as a list in the main article per WP:CSC, WP:SALAT, etc. That is why merging it back would be totally within Wikipedia guideline/policy/etc. except that the article would then be too long. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But it isn't once you remove the fancruft and written it in a concise encyclopedic tone, which I have done. This list was merged before the GA and was brought back because someone wants to treat it like a fansite. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 05:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, although it needs serious pruning. Character lists are perfectly acceptable, and it is standard practice here if a show's character list gets too long. The only problem is that such lists are prone to fancruft, but cleanup and not deletion is the solution. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In the end, it's just going to get redirected cause I have already merged all notable information already. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 02:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dragon if you can cite the character information in the Rozen Maiden article I do not think citing the character list would be a problem over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep its best to improve it, with a series with multiple formats, each being very different. Specific and relevant characters will be missing, if deleted.Lucia Black (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This article doesn't have potential to have encyclopedic value such as conception or decent level of character reception. I've already tried. It will eventually degrade even further into a saturation of fancruft and plot summaries like the majority of character lists. Justifying the character page because the they have multiple appearances is like saying Tales of Graces should have a character list so they can have more plot summaries based on their other appearances. It would just be a collection of non-notable plot summaries. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 11:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not even in artbooks or exclusive interviews? I also remember there being a poll on favorite doll, and I'm sure it was done more than once. Also I've seen all of the anime and read all the manga. The anime differs significantly. Enough to mention them within the characters. there are characters that appear in the anime only and ones that appear in the manga only.Lucia Black (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mentioning differences between the anime and the manga is pure original research unless you can find reliable sources describing those differences. Even saying that a character appears in the manga only is troublesome, because, without a reliable source, the only way that can be verified is to watch all of the anime. Pburka (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then its not original research. the differences can be mentioned. Look at fullmetal alchemist for example. You can verify by adding in the anime episode that shows the difference. Regardless, that's not a serious issue and I'm still highlighting artbooks and interviews and popularity polls.Lucia Black (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your reasoning. If the information can only be determined by combining multiple primary sources, then it's original research. That's the primary problem with this list. Beyond the names, it's nearly entirely original research. Pburka (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Not really. One can highlight what the other has, and it won't be OR. You only need one primary source to prove that the difference exist, not that you have to highlight both. Even then one doesn't need to call it a difference. The word OR is more of a construed fact that can't be proven or hasn't been proven. Regardless the majority of the information is relevant. Afterall, the series differ drastically, and you don't have to take my word for it.Lucia Black (talk) 02:43, 16 December 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.