Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ragna the Bloodedge


 * 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 BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ragna the Bloodedge

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

The pages listed at this AfD all stem from the game BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger. The characters are all already covered extensively in the game's article -- the character pages being created seem to be non-notable content forks from the game's article. The articles are new, so I tagged them with notability tags, but they were reverted so I'm bringing the pages to AfD. -- Nomader (Talk) 06:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the reasons listed, I am also nominating the following articles:




 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. -- Nomader (Talk) 06:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. These seem to be the work of one editor. Since you think (with good reason) that the subjects are worse off covered in separate articles than in that of their works, have you tried discussing this with that editor? --Kiz o r  10:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a note on his talk page last night while he was creating the articles (here . However, the user just removed my notability tags after receiving the message and continued to edit them (diffs:   [). I think he's acting in good faith so I don't hold it against him, but I figured that I needed to bring the articles to AfD if I couldn't have a dicussion with him about them. -- [[User:Nomader|Nomader]] (Talk) 16:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks entirely appropriate. Thank you for showing respect for his feelings and/or efforts, as well as for going out of your way a bit to maintain quality amiably and to treat deletion with the weight it needs. This is the sort of thing Wikipedia needs if it is to survive, especially now that we're past the easy part of building the largest reference work in history. --Kiz o r  01:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if what I did was anything profound-- but thanks, Kizor. -- Nomader (Talk) 05:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's just basic courtesy, which is why its rarity around here is so nargletoting frustrating. :-) --Kiz o r  13:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Pretty much all in-universe violations of WP:N. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all as these articles fail WP:NOT. I agree that there is no evidence these characters are notable, and the lack of citations to verify the source of these articles suggests their content is comprised of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all Nothing wrong with character pages. I don't care whatever the suggested guidelines say, since they change every few weeks according to whoever has the most determined campers there to change and defend.  There is enough content to justify their own article, content which is not covered in the main article.   D r e a m Focus  03:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all as insufficiently notable. No evidence whatsoever that any of these characters have been the subject of substantial coverage by multiple, independent reliable sources. — Satori Son 21:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Creating character articles so close to the game's console release really hurts the chances of finding sources. However, this Games Radar interview focuses on each of the characters in turn, I looked at a few reviews and a lot of focus on the characters quite in-depth, in particular these 4 (apparently the 3 main characters and Arakune 'the weird one everyone talks about'). I think there is actually some opportunity here for either a list or individual articles.. Someoneanother 10:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that right now, it's at a disadvantage so close to its release. But as they stand, there aren't enough reliable sources for individual articles. I wouldn't be opposed to a list article though, but I think that the coverage needs to be fleshed out before it can be created. -- Nomader (Talk) 19:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of the sources I looked at since then don't pay any attention to the characters, so there's no burning need to split at this time. It may be that a character article is needed, but I agree there's no pressure for that to happen and until the game article is hammered into shape properly that won't be clear. Someoneanother 13:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think in general that a "Characters" section should do just fine for now. I'll keep tabs on the article if the character pages are deleted and I'll make a Characters page if I think it's warranted. -- Nomader (Talk) 05:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to achieve what the delete-voters want - removal of the articles from sight - while retaining their history to help editors who want to go for the now-plausible optimal outcome, building a new valid article. --Kiz o r  16:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict)Delete or Redirect all to BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger Having looked again at discussion on the game article's talkpage it's apparent that the content was forked due to question marks being drawn over the reliability of the character information in the main article. It was done in good faith, but now we have a game article with poorly written, hopelessly impenetrable in-universe character bios and articles for 4 separate characters with the same problems. The character section in the game article needs fixing, whether it should become a separate article is a question for the future, in the meantime these characters don't reach individual notability IMO and the new text doesn't offer anything over and above what's in the main article. Someoneanother 18:10, 3 July 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.