Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters in the Ranma ½ manga

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 keep. Wizardman 06:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters in the Ranma ½ manga

Completely unsourced and written in-universe. A list of minor characters is not necessarily notable. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 14:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree article definitely needs cleanup. Hell, entire set of Ranma articles need cleanup, they switch between past and present tense and have a ton of sloppy edits everywhere. But it doesn't need to be deleted. It was probably spun off the main Ranma 1/2 page in the first place to avoid making that article too big. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 16:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A group of editors has been discussing in the main article's talkpage how to deal with the Ranma character articles. They (or "we", as I've participated in the discussion) just need more time for fixing these problems.--Nohansen (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We are currently in the process of talking about how to best restructure the section as a whole. The minor, or not-so-minor but with too limited text to warrant separate entries, characters are a necessary part to showcase the depth of the series as a whole. Wantonly deleting vast segments will greatly diminish it, not add anything constructive whatsoever.

I do however agree that it would be useful to add a quite a few more chapter references. I'm currently busy with other improvements, but help would be very appreciated both in this respect, and a tense and/or over-repetitive word-usage sentence reformatting clean-up.

'Notability', while very useful and relevant for real-world scientific treatises, is also an indiscriminately sweeping, blunt, and utterly destructive hammer for fictional-related pages, given that it essentially says that you are limited to thoroughly referencing available independent essays on the subject, the writers of which per definition generally don't know any more than the Wikipedia contributors. Interviews, mentions in non-fiction works, and similar have usually already been used to the extent that they are available. Dave (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a legitimate sub-article of Ranma ½ and complies with WP:FICT. While the list does need some serious cleanup, this is not the proper venue for such discussion. --Farix (Talk) 21:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep where else would the minour characters go? Clean up the page, don't outright delete it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Add sources, rewrite where necessary for a start. Article (among others relating to the series) is in need of serious cleanup, but lately more editors have the series on their radar. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 23:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid WP:SPINOFF of an article for a very large and complicated franchise. Needs hella cleanup and sourcing, but I note that a group of editors were already discussing how to handle the organization of the suite of articles before the AfD got started -- step back, let 'em do their job, and when the dust settles, revisit if there are remaining notability concerns. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep AFD violates the current Arbcom injunction. Jtrainor (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yes, in my view the afd violates the injunction at least broadly interpreted to include video-like fiction in general, but we might as well discuss it anyway, for I think this page illustrates some problems. The key one is duplication and scattering of the material on the various pages of this complex set of articles. Not being familiar with the series, i am not going to give advice how to do it better--except to say that reading this material did not lead to my acquiring information, but rather confusion. I ascribe this to the practice of dealing with redirects and merges and separations as people propose them, rather than having a stable way of writing these kinds of articles. An deletion of a combination article like this is however only certain to make it worse. DGG (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The injunction only applies if you broadly define "manga" (printed material in comic book-like form) as "television". I'm aware that Ranma also had a television series, but this article is very specific in that it is in regards to the manga, not the television series. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Being minor does not mean we don't mention them at all in an article, often because of how arbitrary "minor" can be defined. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a stronger sub-article that can establish more real-world notability. The key is to organize into the fewest subarticles possible while getting the basic points across. Just because we're not paper does not mean that we stress flabby presentation/excess detail, but we are also not a deletion-happy cabal either. — Deckill er 04:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original minor character list was very long, so it was split into the 3 minor character lists that currently exist in order to segregate characters by medium in which they appear. I got the idea for splitting along these lines from how the Fullmetal Alchemist minor characters are currently organized. What do you suggest in terms of a merge? BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.