Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Story of Saiunkoku 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 redirect to The Story of Saiunkoku. However, if someone would like to work on this in draft space in the hopes of attaining notability required for a separate article, I'm happy to provide the text. Star  Mississippi  01:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

List of The Story of Saiunkoku characters

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Per maintenance tags, it's 100% unsourced, in-universe fancruft. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article does not feature any of the 14 reasons for deletion. While it does need more citations (it currently only has one), a lack of sources on the current version of the article is not justification for its deletion; sources only need to exist somewhere - it's our job as editors to add them, not delete the article where they belong instead of adding them.  See WP:BEFORE regarding these points, in particular Section C, item 1: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD."  None of the points raised is unfixable through normal editing.  I am phrasing it a bit differently, but I am basically saying what  described in more detail on your talk page regarding some of your other AfDs.  (Incidentally, I disagree about the length of the article being an issue.  We're talking about a 22-volume series of books that spawned two multi-season anime adaptations and a spin-off manga.  The cast is large and well-developed, and there are many differences to be noted between the different versions of the series.  The writing could be tuned up, but our bias here should be toward inclusion [when something is worthy thereof] rather than making articles so short they could be read in milliseconds.)  Edited to clarify: the citations that I was referring to include press releases such as  and, reviews like , and of course the books/manga/anime themselves.  These are the standard types of materials for references on list-of-characters pages (see List of Naruto characters, List of Cardcaptor Sakura characters, and List of Fruits Basket characters).  This discussion has already turned up five citations with quick online searches, and the Japanese article has two that could be ported over as well - all of which an editor could and should have included in the article in the first place rather than jumping to deletion.  It's more than a little frustrating to see a non-administrator who had never edited this article first PROD'ing it, then deleting it unilaterally after the PROD was removed, and finally responding to its restoration with an AfD instead of putting in the work to improve it.  WP:ONUS assumes that the editor nominating an article for deletion has met their responsibilities under WP:PRESERVE, which include adding citations.  However, even before that: WP:BEFORE supercedes WP:ONUS in this case.  Per WP:BEFORE, this article should not have been AfD'ed.  (I would remove the AfD myself, but I think my role in the earlier PROD/restoration of the article might make me involved as per WP:CLOSEAFD even though I have never edited this article before and only came across the PROD because I was looking up some information about a Saiunkoku character the other day.)  Whether or not anyone voting here feels that the article could be condensed and moved into the main Saiunkoku page is irrelevant, because the standard for opening an AfD has not been met.  Speaking of, this page was originally part of The Story of Saiunkoku page -  seems to have created the page by culling material from The Story of Saiunkoku back in 2006, since which time dozens of editors have worked on the article.  We're all editors, so we want to tinker, but if you're going to say it should be moved back into The Story of Saiunkoku, please provide a reason for why we should ignore the fact that it was moved to its own page in the first place.  Lists of characters pages are common (see Category:Lists of anime and manga characters for more) and exist for a reason.  This particular page is neither in unusually bad shape nor unusually short (or long) for the category, and the editor who nominated it for deletion did not attempt to fix the citation issue prior to nomination as they were supposed to.  You don't have to think that every single page on Wikipedia ought to be there, but once it is, we need to meet the guidelines in WP:BEFORE prior to considering a deletion.Soraciel (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see why this can't be condensed to a plot summary with mention of the main characters at The Story of Saiunkoku. As for sources I have only found the primary ones used on the official websites:, which can be used to help the main article. Unless there are reviews out there for these characters then I don't see why we need a separate list (I wish I can be proven wrong here). The WP:ONUS is on those who want this kept to find the sources needed, I am not even seeing anything over at ja:wiki . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. I studied the sole Keep suggestion carefully but all I see are lengthy and elaborate arguments invoking policies and guidelines without a specific connection to the article. When all is said and done, we do not have sources supporting independent notability. Let's generously place a Redirect here to The Story of Saiunkoku. -The Gnome (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you mind explaining further? Specifically, what kind of source are you looking for, or alternatively, which parts of the three pages that you linked are you referring to?  I had already linked part of the WP:V page that you linked to the word "supporting" - are you trying to respond to my point?
 * Also: I explicitly wrote about the article, but it is buried in the middle there - I had linked three potential sources (from a major anime news organization, MTV, and an anime publisher, so, meeting the guidelines you linked), noted that the Saiunkoku novels, anime, and manga all constitute potential sources, and discussed the page's length and history. I cited policies specifically to back up my argument that this article shouldn't have been AfD'd in the first place.  Do you have an argument for why it should be?  Lack of citations on the page as it is currently written does not constitute a reason to delete the page, only a reason to improve it.  That said, though I'm not sure why the earlier sources I listed are being discounted, let me give it another go with a more diverse batch of sources that all meet Wikipedia's guidelines:
 * "Great graphic novels for teens.(Recommended readings)," American Library Association, Young adult library services, 2012, Vol.10 (3), p.23
 * "ALSC & YALSA 2012 Book Picks," New York: MSI Information Services, School Library Journal, 2012, Vol.58 (3), p.48
 * "Ayanasu yume no owari : Saiunkoku monogatari fan book," Yukino, Sai, Tōkyō: Kadokawa Shoten,東京 : 角川書店; 2012
 * "Actor, Voice Actor Gabe Khouth Passes Away at 46," Crystalyn Hodgkins, Anime News Network, July 26, 2019 (announcements like this are commonly used to cite voice actors in list of characters-type articles, and Anime News Network has many, many more on Saiunkoku)
 * THE STORY OF SAIUNKOKU, VOL 9, Anna Neatrour, MangaBookshelf, Apr. 16, 2013
 * Colourcloud Palace (Season One), Allen Moody, T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews, n.d. (post-2020)
 * General Feminist-Friendly Anime Recommendations, Anime Feminist, n.d. (post-2017)
 * Ep. 87: The Story of Saiunkoku Manga Discussion (with Dee of Josei Next Door), Ashley McDonnell and Dee, Shojo & Tell: A Manga Podcast, July 5, 2022
 * Those last four are particularly good for quotable phrases about specific characters. A few examples:
 * Re: Shoka Hong: "the more ruthless personality behind his smiling exterior. While he’s an amazingly gentle and wonderful father, his past as an assassin gives a bit of an edge to all of his actions in the manga" (from the Manga Bookshelf review)
 * Re: Kokujun Sa: "milquetoast" and "neurotic guilt feelings and singular lack of ambition" (both from the T.H.E.M. Anime Review)
 * Re: Ryuki Shi: "openly bisexual love interest" (from the Anime Feminist recommendation)
 * That's just what I turned up with another quick search, so I say again: it's disruptive to AfD something without trying to fix it first, and that sort of AfD should be summarily dismissed. If someone doesn't care enough about the topic to spend a minute Googling it, how can they begin to guess at its notability? Soraciel (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are three potential sources that can be used there if the reviewers focus in on the characters and their development. My guess is that this would be for the main characters rather than listing every character that ever appeared in the series. YouTube is not a reliable source unless the channel is official (see: WP:YOUTUBE-EL), and the other sources you mentioned are inline "Cite your sources in the form of an inline citation after the phrase, sentence, or paragraph in question". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that inline citations would be best - that's what's been done on the other list of characters-style pages. Those pages also cite relevant chapters/episodes and articles like the Anime News Network one about the voice actor, which it sounds like you don't think should be used.  Am I reading you right there, or was that an oversight?  The voice actors are the one big out-of-universe aspect of the page as it currently stands, so it doesn't seem like you'd argue against citing them.  (FWIW, there isn't really an introduction on this page either, and those are pretty standard for list-of-characters pages.  Adding one is easy and would address the in-universe critique.)
 * I've never linked a Youtube video, so thank you for directing me to that page. That link was actually to a video version of a podcast episode - would the podcast itself work?  It's unclear to me what y'all's expectations are for notability here.  List of Naruto characters, a featured list that I linked above, has entries about minor characters and entries that only cite manga chapters and a voice actor (see Chiyo's entry for an example of both).  It doesn't seem like anyone has tried to add such citations to this article.
 * That said, I agree that whether any given character currently listed on the page should stay is something that could be debated, but that's not what's under debate here. The only question being asked through this process is "do we delete the page?"  Had the current editorial debate begun with someone suggesting the removal of a few targeted characters on the talk page, I would never have even gotten involved.  It's the jump from never having edited the page to repeatedly attempting to delete it - and even actually deleting it despite not having the administrative authority to do so when the first PROD failed - coupled with the use of dismissive and pejorative terms to describe the article and its editors that I strenuously object to.  This isn't neutral.
 * (Actually, you prompted me to look at the talk page, and the only discussion of specific characters' appropriateness for this page relates to adding Shurei Hong, Seiran Si, and Ryuki Shi to this page in exchange for deleting their old independent pages.)
 * ETA: Thought that it might be worth linking WP:NNC (specific guideline: "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists that restrict inclusion to notable items or people)"). Soraciel (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your passion, the fact is, even if this article were to pass AfD, it would still require extensive editing to meet current WP standards. As it stands, it is essentially a retelling of the manga, which makes it WP:DERIVATIVE. The whole thing is written from an in-universe perspective, which is a problem per WP:WAF. I shouldn't be able to read the article and feel I have basically read the manga and right now, that's where it is. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no one has said it doesn't need editing. Rather, it's tagged to prompt us to edit it.  That's what tags exist for.  The AfD process, on the other hand, is not for articles that need editing - see the sentence "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." in the "Before Nominating" section of the guide to the AfD process.
 * If a page's bad editing is bothering you, please do fix it! It's just that "fixing it" means searching out and adding citations, revising text - such as by adding an out-of-universe introduction - and otherwise editing the article.  You wrote on your talk page that you "look at [your PRODs & AfDs of articles that you haven't edited] as a way of saying, 'OK, WP, time to put up or shut up. Either whip this article into shape or let go of it.'"  But, you aren't in charge of other editors!  Strong-arm tactics like that force other editors to spend time on articles that you prioritize over articles that we prioritize!  That's part of why so many people have reverted your edits and commented on your talk page - you're disrupting other work when you could just do the work you want to see on your own or - if you don't feel you have the relevant expertise - try to get capable editors involved by adding the page to relevant WikiProjects.  You can do a lot on Wikipedia, but you are only in control of your own actions.
 * I mainly do minor grammar fixes (usually so small I don't even bother to log in), but when I do more substantial editing, I focus on articles about Japanese and Asian cultures, prominent women, women's issues, and cultural works by and for women and girls. I'm fluent in Japanese and have access to a lot of good printed sources on these subjects in multiple languages.  This page is right up my alley.  That doesn't mean that this page is my highest priority.  All of those articles I just linked?  They need more attention.  I don't have a ton of free time, so I prioritize my editing based on my knowledge of the relevant fields and what is topical at any given time.  Your judgment of how I should use my time should not supersede mine, but by pushing over and over for a deletion, you've forced me to find time to do basic research on a page that you might find to be a priority, but I do not.  Really basic research - Anime News Network is the major English-language news organization, and Funimation is one of the biggest Anglophone publishers.  Lists of characters pages often lack citations, in part because most of the citations seem to end up being different chapters or episodes... when characters' text is cited at all, which it often isn't.  (Again see the featured list, List of Naruto Characters for examples of what I mean.)
 * Citation and phrasing standards mean nothing if we simply ignore anything whose page fails them instead of improving it.


 * And as long as I'm editing my response above, I'll add that the point of WP:Derivative is to guard against plagiarism (which this article is definitely not) by encouraging fair use (Mt. Holyoke College has fairly straightforward chart that I've directed my students to in the past to help them determine whether their research papers contain plagiarism. That's why WP:Derivative is part of a page on copyright, not the notability page.  If you're still concerned, be aware that even the lengthiest, most in-universe summary of a character's narrative arc imaginable would still constitute fair use so long as the author's phrasing was not paraphrased, the summary was part of a larger work (a massive encyclopedia, for example), the work was transformative (perhaps by turning a fictional story into a reference work), and the usage would likely lead to little lost income - or possible earned income - by the author (perhaps because it guided readers toward publishers of the anime by linking them on the same page).Soraciel (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Soraciel (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Soraciel (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Soraciel. You have defended your position more than enough. Adding more input wout be over the demarcation for bludgeoning the conversation. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point I would also support moving this to a Draft as Soraciel is passionate about the subject. This draft in particular would then need to be submitted for review. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - The topic is not suitable for an encylopedia at this time. The provided sources do not seem like they would improve the article to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The_Story_of_Saiunkoku or draftify. The list is unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:V, on the other hand, such lists are common and frankly I think we should have a community-wide RfC on notability criteria for lists of characters from various media. A list of characters should be present in the main article (The_Story_of_Saiunkoku does not have one). I cannot recommend a merge due to zero references, but if an attempt to add references would be made, I could reconsider my vote. If no attemp tto actually improve the article is made, I think a redirect, preserving the content for someone who will attempt to reference things, is a fair compromise. For anyone who wants to improve this, I'd suggest starting a referenced list of characters in the artice. The amount of plot summary in the current list is likely too much (WP:DERIVATIVE) anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect - Mostly unreferenced and fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:PLOTSOURCE no sources are required for plot and character summaries because it is assumed the source is the work itself. These articles are usually created because a series has so many important characters it would be WP:UNDUE to list them all in the main article (in that it takes too much of the article size). I won't give an opinion though because I don't know which characters in this series are important. Regardless if it should be split or not, as others have said the summaries need to be significantly trimmed down. Jumpytoo Talk 08:53, 19 July 2022 (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.