Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sengoku Basara 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 Sengoku Basara. The one "keep" opinion does not address the substance of the arguments for deletion, that is, lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Whether these requirements are documented in a style guideline or an inclusion guideline does not matter. The other contributors agree that this does not warrant article-level coverage. No clear consensus to outright delete, though, therefore I'm redirecting and it's up to editors to find consensus about whether to merge anything from the history. Sandstein 06:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sengoku Basara characters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of non-notable video game characters is WP:GAMEGUIDE material and fails WP:VGSCOPE No. 6: " Standalone lists of video game characters are expected to be written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception, and cited by independent, secondary sources to verify this information." While there are plenty of news articles that mention that new characters are added to an upcoming game, none give any of the information crucial for a stand-alone list. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep failure to comply with MOS expectations is not a reason for deletion, but rather for cleanup. Citing an MOS in a deletion nomination is explicit acknowledgement that if an article were cleaned up appropriately that the nominator believes it would be encyclopedic. Jclemens (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: That you don't agree with me is fine, but that you're suggesting that I actually do believe this to be of encyclopedic nature is inappropriate. I have to ask you not to twist my words or motivations. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 03:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're citing an MOS in a deletion rationale, then you are asserting that the associated problems are not that it's not encyclopedic, but that it's presented wrong. If you don't believe that it's encyclopedic at all, then you can feel free to strike your MOS-based arguments. This isn't meant as an insult to your motivations, but rather pointing out the contradiction inherent in your argument. See also WP:UGLY. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jclemens:, I was on my phone earlier, which is pain when replying. When I say "non-notable" I mean it fails WP:N. Did I really had to point to that guideline? I did specifically pointed to WP:GAMEGUIDE, which says what Wikipedia is not. WP:VGSCOPE starts off with "Below is a list of content that is generally considered beyond the scope of information of Wikipedia articles on video games and related video game topics". If I say that this list of characters is "beyond the scope of information" of WP:VG, how am I saying it can be improved? I don't take it as an insult, I see it as WP:UNCIVIL behaviour to say that I believe something else that I'm saying. Could you also point to the guideline or essay that says "Citing an MOS in a deletion nomination is explicit acknowledgement that if an article were cleaned up appropriately that the nominator believes it would be encyclopedic"? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that both the MOS:VG shortcut and the navigation box on the right of that page include the article guidelines as a "manual of style" issue. In short, there is no way you can legitimately refer to WP:VGSCOPE in an article deletion discussion, because style guidelines only apply to things that SHOULD be kept at AfD, and failing any style guideline is not cause for deletion, only cleanup. You've now had and acknowledged your opportunity to remove it, so a closing admin can and should disregard your nomination entirely as not arguing for deletion.

Furthermore, you cite WP:GAMEGUIDE, but show no evidence of having read it and applied it to this specific situation. Character lists and plot elements are not covered in that, but only gameplay matters, if I can oversimplify it a bit. I'm sorry if you feel that me educating you about the shortcoming of your nomination is WP:UNCIVIL, but I have done nothing but politely point out the inherent contradiction in your own argument. I don't think you're any less of a person or editor because you're wrong, and if you got that impression, then I unreservedly apologize for it. Still, I will not insult your intelligence by presuming that you can't figure out why a manual of style issue is only applicable to material appropriate to be kept in the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sengoku_Basara#Characters. The very little that is sourced can be sufficiently covered in the parent article. These articles should not be split unless warranted by the sources. Please {{ping}} me and others if you find more sources to consider. czar 23:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or selectively merge per above. There is nothing to establish the article as its own independent topic, so the parent pages can easily cover the most important aspects. TTN (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2016 (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.