Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Space Battleship Yamato 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, near unanimous keep debate, delete due to arguments that no one is working on it are not valid Fr33kman talk  APW 19:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Space Battleship Yamato characters

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This articles has no reliable sources to justify article.


 * Uh. I think you've done this wrong.  This should probably be undone/relisted or something.  Also keep.  208.245.87.2 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Administrivia - The attempted listing of this AfD seems to have gotten borked. I've fixed the header here and relisted it in the main AfD page (assuming I managed to not bork things myself). The five days timing should, however, begin now, I believe. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Then tag for needing verification per WP:BEFORE. I note that the series itself is majorly notable, and that a list of characters is by consensus a valid spinout for articles about works of fiction when they get too long. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Quasirandom. Characters of notable series are often spun out from their original articles. JuJube (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Where are the individual references for the characters about the characters to justify notability then ? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Character articles are a standard spinoff article to prevent the main article from growing too large and this is definitely a notable series. Edward321 (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I understand that point all I am saying is provide evidence of the characters through references is it that hard to understand? Dwanyewest (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If an article has no references, you mark that it needs references. You don't put it up for deletion.  That's policy wonkery and it's not cool. JuJube (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This article has been here since last year thats more than enough time for someone to make an effort to provide reliable evidence from non fan sites or self published materials. If JuJube is so concerned why don't they provide references for this article. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about this show. And how about addressing the points? Lack of references in and of itself is not sufficient reason to delete an article no matter how much time has passed. JuJube (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that at the bottom of this article and the main one there are several external links that can be used to trivially verify the existance of most of those characters. ANN can also verify most of the roles. If your complaint is that the references are not explicit enough, that is very much not a valid reason for deletion, but rather a reason to improve the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said if anyone can do the work then do it surely according to wikipedia an article has to fall on the burden of the writer to prove what they are saying is true. WP:Burden Dwanyewest (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I just seem to bewildered how anime with less reliable references than I have used in articles have created survive. At least I used official websites to use most of my references and the editors seem to ignore their own rules such as the criteria to provide reliable sources . I feel the references aren't reliable and fails wikipedia's criteria WP:PSTS Dwanyewest (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at your articles, I'm not sure you really understand the notability policies to begin with especially if you think that linking to an official website is notable; actually, it seems like you've gotten notability and verifiability confused. Looking at your Great Yamato article, which seems like you just machine-translated the official website, made the infobox, and tagged the article for someone else to finish, I highly suggest you brush up on policy before you start trying to cause trouble to make a point - I don't know what motivated you to start this, but most of your Yamato articles have the same problem so your indignation is probably not completely justified. There's more to editing than just creating a page, filling out the infobox and a couple of generic links, then copy-pasting in some random text and tagging it for cleanup. Gelmax (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:NOEFFORT is not a good reason for deletion. It could be that an expert on Space Battleship Yamato has yet to come along and see the article.  Most of this article is probably implicitly cited or citeable from the series itself. -Malkinann (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - series is lengthy enough and licensed, and thus able to support having a separate character list. The page needs a lot of cleanup, but so does the main article (which just plain sucks), but that isn't a valid reason for deletion. This is a perfectly valid and standard spin-out for this kind of series. From the comments above, this seems to be a pointy nomination, possibly due to the editors own list for a very short series being redirected back to the main article because one could not make a valid case for a spin-out on such a short series. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Standard spinout article for a notable, lengthy series. Fix it up a bit. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable. Gelmax (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Space Battleship Yamato is a historically significant anime. This anime that has lasted 35 years (yes, it is still being worked on in 2008). This article is a list instead of creating seperate articles for each character in the series. It is my understanding that this is a valid reason for a spin off list - the size of the main article. Does it need cleanup? Sure it does, as does the rest of the articles in this collection. But that is not a reason for deletion. Turlo Lomon (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't know where people are getting the impression that reliable sources aren't needed for an article, but it sure isn't from our policies or guidelines concerning sources and inclusion. See Articles for deletion/Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship) for similar arguments.  This particular article fails both WP:PLOT and WP:IINFO.  The big reason secondary sources are needed for topic coverage is that those sources provide critical commentary that we can then summarize.  Interpreting promotional sources from the company or primary sources (the episodes themselves) is not our job.  The significance of the "parent" article doesn't have any impact on this particular article.  Unless there are multiple sources which cover the subject (characters of the show) in detail, this article should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SPINOUT and WP:FICT. List of characters are a natural spinout of the main article, particularly for works of fiction that have a large cast. Most of the content can be assumed to be sourced from the work itself, though more specific citations would be helpful. The source of the character names should either be sourced or removed as original research. --Farix (Talk) 11:00, 9 September 2008 (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.