Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Goth


 * 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.

List of characters in Goth
The result was merge into Goth (novel). smooth0707 (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


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

Article is redundant to Goth (novel), an unnecessary split; prod removed in favor of a merge, but there is nothing here but plot summary focused on the manga version; delete in favor of expanding the main article with a character section that is focused on the novel and well written Doceirias (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   —Doceirias (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a reasonable breakout article assuming "Goth" itself is notable. Also, I don't understand why you are asking for a deletion when you think this information belongs in the main article. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - a reasonable split if length justifies it, which it does not. I suppose I could have simply replaced this page with a redirect to the main article, but since no one in their right mind would ever search for the character article first, it seemed unnecessary. Doceirias (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. What little information that is not covered in Goth (novel), can be condensed and added. smooth0707  (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, isn't that a merge and redirect? Hobit (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. The main article is short enough to contain everything in the character article without issue. I don't see why you needed to take this to AfD, niether article has ever had much work done on them so no one would oppose if you took a step forward to improve them. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as not requiring a separate article as for length, per suggested guidelines for handling this sort of material; as part of the merge, rewrite the material to be media-independent -- easy, no? (Speaking as the deprodder.) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So for future reference, on this sort of thing I could have just been bold and replace the page with a redirect? Will remember that. Feel free to close. Doceirias (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In some cases a simple redirect may be insufficient; you could have either merged it directly (followed by the redirect) or added Merge templates.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What got me confused is that there's nothing here to merge. Obviously, I would have gone with a merge tag if there was anything worth keeping. Doceirias (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Hardly any of that content is salvagable, so as per my comment above, there is little to save. smooth0707  (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Not enough content on either page to justify there being two seperate pages, but no one's made any good case for deletion over merging and improving; this AfD seems kind of confused. Gelmax (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * AfD was based on my improper understanding of procedure; apparently, I should have made this page a redirect. At the moment the AfD is just waiting for someone to make a procedural close. Doceirias (talk) 02:18, 1 August 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.