Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Son Goten


 * 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   merge to List of Dragon Ball characters. BJ Talk 00:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Son Goten

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

Unnotable fictional character with no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. Was merged to List of Dragon Ball characters, but two editors felt this was done against consensus and one demanded that the article be "properly" taken to AfD for "real consensus" so now doing so. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of Dragon Ball characters -- I didn't find material to support the character's independent notability during the merge discussion, and I'm not finding it now. Do not delete, because plausible search term. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - this is not the forum for merger discussions, they should take place on the talk page of said article. Not enough notability to warrant an individual article. – Toon (talk)  16:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On that we agree...but other editors feel that merging without an AfD is "stealth deletion" so here we be. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not notifying people who are in the middle of a good faith merge discussion (which you started) that you have abandoned the discussion they are waiting for you to reply to, and nominated it for an AfD is a stealth deletion.JJJ999 (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing stealth about it, nor is there any requirement to put a notice on the list page in a dead merge discussion. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge is the best thing to avoid the content being completely lost. The character appears to have no outside notability, but he is important within the DB universe and content about him must not be removed for a better comprehension of the topic, so the best thing it to have a good section in the List of characters. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  18:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep because notability is just a guideline, not a rule (and a breathtakingly stupid guideline, at that). There is more than enough information here to justify the full article. Thanos6 (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge - per nom. The character didn't have as much a role in the series as the others. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge. Per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Goten should be deleted because I always liked Trunks better anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBZFAN88 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That alone is not sufficient enough for constructive consensus. Sorry... Anyway, I myself say Merge to said list. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * DBZFAN88, please stop posting nonsense. JuJube (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It is important in these merges that content not be lost, but this was a good merge, done properly. If the content is preserved, and the combination article does not get too long,  i don't  see that it make much of a difference. I think its time we realised we need a method of determining these merges and redirects beyond  the inadequate one of using the talk pages, and the inappropriate one of using AfD. Maybe WP:RM can be turned into a place for discussion. DGG (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge not a character with enough real-world relevance for its own article. JuJube (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell me Jube, how do your votes on DBZ match up with your vote for Baby face in Batman TAS?JJJ999 (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- I don't feel as strongly about Goten, my instinct is keep, and I believe good sources could be added. However it won't be by me anytime soon.  What is annoying is the lack of notice for any of these AfDs after good faith merger discussions were started, and where people are still waiting for further discussion.  Collectonian and Lord S started these discussions, were eagerly using them to merge articles, and while people await in good faith their replies they have done these AfDs.  It's not acceptable really.JJJ999 (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Dragon Ball characters. Does not meet notability guidelines on its own. Karanacs (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Source for Goten here; http://books.google.com/books?id=EbWPyAm0E_8C&pg=PA32&dq=cell+dragonball&lr=&as_brr=0&sig=ACfU3U2YChjRNC3fjYALiZh0ffUse9t37g

I suggest more could be found quite easily. But of course, most people here aren't interested in reading the sources, since they've predetermined they want to kill the character.JJJ999 (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, no actual evidence. Unable to provide a page number or quotes, showing you have no idea at all if the book actually discusses him with any depth. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, that source is a book named "500 Manga Heroes and Villains" - not soley about the character, which would be fine if it covered the subject in depth, but the link shows a page and a bit of text about three different characters - that's what, a little over a third of a page in an entire book (of 352 pages) coverage. That doesn't support a keep !vote. Your argument will be stronger if you can actually demonstrate to us that the subject has been subject of significant coverage, instead of suggesting that some could be easily found, and insulting people involved in the debate. – Toon (talk)  00:22, 9 October 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.