Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Familiar of Zero 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 Speedy Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraftlos (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

List of The Familiar of Zero characters

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

This list article seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE in that it is not encyclopedic but rather a list of characters and trivia from a work of fiction. I doubt the notability of such a list. Moreover, the talk page reads like a fan forum. Lhynard (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- Farix (Talk) 23:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The list does need cleaned up, like removing the trivial stats from the character description. However, these are not a reason for deletion. Character lists are considered valid spinout articles when the list becomes too long or contains to many significant characters to contain within the main article. And unless the list comprises almost entirely of minor characters, the main work is not notable, or the list does not comply with WP:SALAT, these lists are almost never deleted. --Farix (Talk) 23:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If anything, merge back to the main article rather than delete, but given that, even after cleaning up this would cause the main article to get too large and focus unduly on the cast, I'm against that. I note that the cast of characters of a work, be it a novel, television show, or comic book (and this is all three), is important to the understanding of the work. As Farix notes, past precedent strongly supports the notion that standalone character lists are appropriate spinout articles. Thus, I say keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the reasons already given. The nominator may not be familiar with how character lists are handled whether it be in WP:ANIME or some other WikiProject. I agree that the article needs a major revamp, and would disagree with a merge as it would bloat the main article.--  十  八  01:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm just not familiar with how lists are dealt with on Wikipedia, as you say. I did read up on WP for lists, and it didn't seem to belong at all from all the policies I read -- but then, neither do the other hundred similar lists I saw categorized. If the precedent is to keep such lists, fair enough.Lhynard (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So then, just to clarify, do you withdraw your nomination? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think I'll just "wait it out" and see what others have to say and what the admins do. I still think it (and a large bulk of other related list articles) are A) in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and in no way encyclopedic; B) in violation of WP:DIRECTORY in that it is a "complete exposition of all possible details" and in no way "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding [the] subject"; C) in violation of WP:SIZE; D) in violation of WP:V, since it almost entirely cites primary sources and not secondary or third-party ones; and finally E) in violation of WP:NB (for books), in that it does not meet even one of the five citeria listed for books to be notable according to Wikipedia. In short, there are plenty of other places to host such listings of very specific information for fans of anime and manga, but I don't see Wikipedia as that place. But if the admins choose to not delete it, that is fine.Lhynard (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As a clarification, I am not opposed to lists. Of course, there is a place for them on Wikipedia. This is an excellent one, that does not have the above problems: List of Naruto characters. Lhynard (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So essentially, you're complaining that this one hasn't been developed enough compared to that one? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not so much complaining as suggesting that it is better to delete an article in violation of so many Wikipedia policies than to tag it countless times for all of the violations. But maybe that's not the case. I have nothing against the "idea" of this particular article. Are article deletions based on the "idea" of "hypothetical" articles or the actual articles themselves? (I admit that I am new to this, so this is all a learning experience.) Should I withdraw this nomination for deletion and go and tag up the article instead? Lhynard (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Up to you - I'm pretty sure we'll see a WP:SNOW keep in any event. Tagging would actually be nice, gives us ideas for what to work on in the future.  It may be the case that it will not be updated for a good long time, but see also WP:DEADLINE and WP:WNF. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points; thanks for the links. I need to run to something, but anyone can feel free to remove this nomination for deletion. See, I wasn't just trying to be an ass. I'll go and tag the article for changes at some later time, and hopefully the article can be brought up to Wikipedia's standards. Thanks to everyone for responding and being nice. Lhynard (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * AFDs are, technically, supposed to be on the concept rather than condition, yes. In practice, sometimes the decision is that the current content is so, er, broken that it's best to wipe the slate clean -- but this is usually only done when the content is largely wrong or hopelessly distorted, as opposed to needing scrubbing and developing further. Sometimes, as policy recognizes, you have to start with a dirty article before you can clean it up. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's talk this one by one


 * A) in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and in no way encyclopedic


 * Past precedent have shown that character lists, when done correctly, are encyclopedic and are not considered indiscriminate information. If anything, character lists tend to violate WP:WAF, but that is a cleanup issue and not reasons to delete the list.


 * ''B) in violation of WP:DIRECTORY in that it is a "complete exposition of all possible details" and in no way "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding [the] subject"


 * A character list should not contain every character that appears in the work. If it does, then the insignificant characters should be removed, leaving only the significant characters. Also, character discrimination should be a brief summary describing the character's role in the plot. If a character summary is too detailed, then it should be trimmed. Again, both of these are cleanup issues and not reasons to delete the list.


 * C) in violation of WP:SIZE


 * I'm not seeing as how that is applicable.


 * D) in violation of WP:V, since it almost entirely cites primary sources and not secondary or third-party ones


 * It shouldn't be that hard to find a reviewer that talks about the characters, so this is a red harring. In the end, this is a cleanup issue and not a reason to delete the list.


 * E) in violation of WP:NB (for books), in that it does not meet even one of the five citeria listed for books to be notable according to Wikipedia.


 * List fall under a different set of inclusion criteria instead of notability. Those standards are defined at WP:SALAT. So long as the parent topic is notable and the list's criteria is not overly broad or narrow, then a list is permitted. And seeing how easy it is to find reviews for the series. In fact, these two reviews deals with point D that you gave. --Farix (Talk) 21:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep a legitimate spinout article to keep the main one from growing too long. Edward321 (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2009 (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.