Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiddy Grade characters

Today we are preparing to enter the exciting world of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiddy Grade characters. Whether it is a historical figure, a current topic, a social phenomenon or any other aspect that catches our attention, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiddy Grade characters undoubtedly has a significant impact on our lives. Throughout this article we will explore various perspectives, analyze relevant data and present expert opinions in order to fully understand the importance and relevance of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiddy Grade characters in the current context. We're excited to dive into this topic and discover everything Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiddy Grade characters has to offer us.
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 all but Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade) to List of Kiddy Grade characters. Mangojuicetalk 16:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Kiddy Grade characters

I prodded some of these articles earlier but they were deprodded without any comment by their author. I feel that they relate to characters from a very minor animé series, and may constitute fancruft.

The articles I am nominating are:

I am not nominating the following lists at this time:

I feel we do not need detailed articles on all these characters. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I am this Author. Does 977,000 GHits () sound minor? I feel really insulted by this, I really enjoy this series and wish to make a valid contribution to the pages related to it. I don't care, how big or small it is, I am interested in doing this. I just happened to put great effort into these pages and really wish to improve them. I have contacted several users for their help, and placed the article in several 'wikihelp' instances, note the Talk page. I as one dont understand the obsession with not needing detailed articles on 'minor things'. I happen to note that you have no active interest in anime series. Unfortunately who are you to decide wether or not this article is relevant, irrespective of your admin title? All I want to do is write a damn good article and everything is getting in the way. Most of my argument is personal, I realise that. --Crampy20 22:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    CommentAlso Ah! My Goddess, arguable the most popular anime around at the moment, has less GHits than this (). --Crampy20 22:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Firstly, I should be clear that the fact I am an admin is not relevant to this discussion - anyone can nominate articles for deletion and I am acting as a regular user and not an administrator in that regard. Secondly, I am not (exclusively) trying to decide whether this article should remain on Wikipedia or not - this discussion will hopefully attract other Wikipedians who can contribute and make recommendations. Stifle (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: That is unfair, I do not base my argument on that fact, ''irrespective of your admin title'' should make that clear. I wish for your comments on my comments. --Crampy20 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Articles should be much more than they are now and give character relevance if they are to stay, but the pages were just created. As for Crampy20, don't take things so personally, as while this isn't a vote rants are more likely to lose like-minded individuals than gain them. I do disagree with KG being considered very minor (while it is an average series), but if this is as far in detail as the articles are to go I'm more in favor of a Merge. Voice of Treason 23:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I was moving around information, i think that classes as moving, not creation. The information on all these characters was on, the now deleted, List of Kiddy Grade Characters, i was moving info to characters own pages. I wish to take things personally in this instance. When someone puts efforts into something, they dont want to see it deleted, that goes for every single person. Deletion is spiteful, I wish to only see this occur in vandalism and such cases. Also i wish to point out that it is a distinctly good series, it is the first 5 episodes that really let it down. Also a merge seems stupid as this information was shall i say, un-merged, as described earlier. Again I shall point out the Talk page If people are going to refer to the quality of the article. --Crampy20 23:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Venting is doing nothing to help your case here. My point of view of the series' quality has nothing to do with my nod to stay/go, and how long the text was around before doesn't change the fact the articles are very young (which was an argument to your benefit, not against). I will say though, after sitting through the show only once, I don't think that many characters could supply sufficent content to sustain an independent article. It shows they were taken from a list as of now, an expansion of detail and relevance on your part would do more to prove doubters wrong. Voice of Treason 23:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I am going to stop my venting, I takes me time to stop being juvenile about things.--Crampy20 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I would again like to point out the Kiddy Grade Talk Page - Talk:Kiddy Grade where I am currently trying to rally other people to help me improve this article. I would also like to point out this, as much as I am shooting myself in the foot. It is relevent and . Where the information was clearly farmed from. Another reason for improvement on this article. Which i plan on starting soon.--Crampy20 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge: It would be easier to just move the short paragraphs if the pages have to be deleted rather than to delete the character summaries. If anyone needs to look at the structure of anime articles rules stuctures see; WikiProject Anime and manga. This is my opinion of trying to save the summaries of the character if possible. -Adv193 23:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Point taken on the merging. But Aesthisticly and in terms of wanting numerous images, this way is the best. I have done similar things with other animes, most notable Tenchi Muyo where you take an article, where the character info is confusingly placed all on one page and move them to separate ones supplying a char box. It encouraged writing ten-fold. The images help the articles immensely too.--Crampy20 23:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 23:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't want to be rude and please don't take this is gnawing the newbies or assuming ill intentions of an editor. I don't, it's not the editor, it's the culture. But there has been a pervasive explosion of these character articles in Anime articles. They contain little chunks of information, but only seem to exist to hold an image and an infobox on the character and to fill out a character navagation template...
  • I have half a mind to say delete the lot of them and start from scratch .. but I'd only push for that if we could throw in the similarly formatted character articles from OMG, IY, and Tenchi as well. They were all created in the same manner, and it's not well suited to the wikipedia. First off, they contain way too many pictures and (some of them) seem to only exist because an infobox was able to be created for the article. But, I will not be mean to the information and I will push for a SUPER speedy merge These articles fall under the auspices of the WP:FICTION which give a wonderful steps on how to create such pages. Also, a aticle like Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade) contains WAY too many photos and is a definite violation of the fair use policy. It needs a lot of trimming regardless of the outcome of this debate. I would vote to Delete the Kiddy Grade Infobox and navigation templates, if I could.
  • I also mistakenly removed a prod template from the minor non-human chars article.. It, however, would be best to list it with these articles.
  • There are a lot of Anime and manga character articles that need to be cleaned up and merged. (Though there will be some fights on certain series.) Perhaps, I should nominate as a ACOTW. --Kunzite 00:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Oh and I have already cleared this up with another admin, it isnt a breach of fair use as, each picture is displayed just once throughout the whole of wikipedia. --Crampy20 09:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I wish to point out that I am not trying to do what fits in with policy best, but with what is easiest to read. This is an anime, and a anime is a cartoon and as a visual product, pictures are available and used. For this point i will use Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade) and will tell you that all the pictures are relevent. There is the main one of each character there, you can't argue with that. Then there is also one of their guard robot and ship, that La Muse and Donnershlag, each of these articles are important in the series, technically, I see that they should be placed on the Non-human Kiddy Grade Characters Page. But they are relevant to the people. Now the other 4 pictures of eclair and lumiere are ones of forms that we learn about later in the series, while these forms are relevant they are also spoilers. But again this is an anime, it is visual each picture is useful and each has a purpose. Wether or not this suits the wikipedia style. As I am trying to get an article that is easy to read and that gives lots of relevenet info. Now in terms of the info the pages are very young, and haven't had time to accumulate information. That said a merge should probably wait a bit at least. --Crampy20 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've never heard that a fair use image may only appear once in wikipedia. I do, however, know that only a limited ammount of fair use images should appear on a page. The fair use image (screenshot) has one goal: "For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Furthermore, according to the official policy, "3) The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately" and "8) The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." For the page in its current for, the images of the the two charaters on that page could be done with two images. As to the newness of the articles, I'm currently out of time and will write more on that later. --Kunzite 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Since they are often in pairs, the articles aren't as bad as many others. Probably better to merge them a bit more, perhaps Main chars, ES Members, and Others. - Wickning1 03:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong merge to List of Kiddy Grade characters per WP:FICT. A partial merge to multiple smaller lists, per Wickning1, would be an acceptable alternative if it is likely that a single monolithic list would be too cumbersome for people who are looking for this information. — Haeleth Talk 08:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment A merge to multiple pages, if the page is large, would also be a wonderful solution. --Kunzite 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Wikipedia grows faster and better on stubs and this is something that should be encouraged. WP:FICT (Notability) is not a policy to promote deletionism. People should not be given timetables on how fast they are to write articles. --Cat out 11:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: There can be a lot that can be said about Keiichi Morisato. The character appeared on 5 ova episodes, one anime movie, over 37 anime episodes (ongoing serries), furthermore it appeared on a manga that had been around since 1988 (23 volumes). By all means Keiichi is among the most notable fictional characters. With the logic behind this nom that article should also be merged just like all stub articles throughout wikipedia. At a point Tornado was a stub. --Cat out 11:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose what, exactly? This is AFD, not RFA; the usual bolded comments are keep, delete, merge, redirect, etc. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
CommentYES.. It should be merged into a list of characters. If, after the article is merged into that list, there is a decent ammount of information, a summary should be left on the character's page and the article should be moved to its own page. The Keiichi article doesn't have much substance right now.. It's a lot better than some of the other one paragraph, two sentence, fluff that exists for some of the other OMG articles. Secondly, you're over stating the character's importance he's appeared in a lot of episodes, but only one franchise. The case could be made per WP:FICTION that he deserves his own article because he appears in an OVA, the TV series, and the manga of the same exact series, but that's stretching it a bit.
I have told you this before, and I will tell it to you again: there are more benefits from merging these articles than keeping them seperate. The first and foremost is that they reduce the number of pages that need to be monitered to ensure that changes are made correctly and that no vandalism is occouring. They also make the articles easier to navigate and provide more succinct articles without the need to repeat the same information over and over and over. --Kunzite 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Very tough call. The series and characters are notable, but the articles are, quite frankly, horrid, and do not even attempt to use an outside perspective on the series. Also, way too many images, ugly templates and nowhere near enough prose. In accordance with my view that articles up for deletion as "fancruft" should be judged by quality of writing, I say merge, with no prejudice towards recreation iff the author can come up with better versions. --tjstrf 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Your points are null, you cannot make a call on wether or not to keep an article based on "looks," clearly stated in policy. There is no policy on fancruft so that isn't a valid reason. Giving that the articles are horrid could be considered a personal attack, against policy. Thank you for your opinion. --Crampy20 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I apologize for the excessively intense langauge then, it was not meant to be interpeted as an attack. By "horrid", I meant that they don't follow the writing guidelines (including WP:FICT), manual of style, proper voice for writing about fiction, etc. I'm simply suggesting they be merged for now, and that you rewrite them one at a time. We did something similar with a number of character articles from the Bleach (manga) category who were either non-notable or had not yet proven their notability, and as some of them have turned out to be important, we have reinstated their articles. I'm not saying we should salt the earth here, just that character lists are preferable to character articles until the list has reached a sufficient length. --tjstrf 19:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank for reiterating that, I was just poking the fire with the horrid comment. ummmm, The notability is not disputed. An earlier comment comparing the GHits of this to Ah My Goddess, a clearly more favored program. Proves that it is beyond a doubt notable. And I am also going through the articles, if you still think that Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade) is written badly please say, as the new article is designed to be far better and non fancruft. --Crampy20 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, now I'm confused, but at least it had some actual information. Still needs significant clean-up. (Tip:Use sub-headings) Why are Eclair and Lumiere listed as one article anyway? The only times I've ever seen 2 character articles are for characters who are split personalities of each other. It also needs far less pictures. --tjstrf 19:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all to either main article or to list of characters. Main article has nothing on them, and the pages up for deletion don't have much. So put them all back together - policy, I believe, says they should only be split when there becomes too much to keep them on the main page. Trim them down and put them back there. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all but Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade). This is the only characters with enough content to stand on their own and should be split into their own articles. The rest, however are too short in accordance with WP:FICT and should be merged into List of Kiddy Grade characters with short excerpts for Eclair and Lumiere as well. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, the editor's effort to pair up related characters to decrease the number of subarticles by a factor of 2 is admirable, and if there's not, in fact, enough information for separate articles, they can be revisited when they've had enough time to mature. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Haven't really read what everyone else's take is on this, but it seems to me that the grouping of this AfD is off. A quick glance and it would seem that some definitely should be their own articles, while others I could see as merged to a list. So merge and/or keep, but definitely not delete. -- Ned Scott 02:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong merge. I've sinned in regards to crufty character articles, although I think I'm on the road to atonement. I'm becoming increasinly hostile to the idea of separate articles for all but the most important characters in fiction, and anime a fortiori. Considering how hard it is to get citable material for an anime series as a whole, I can't believe that there's enough on the Kiddy Grade characters listed above to warrant all these articles. One article succinctly listing all the notable characters should suffice, with either one cast shot ala NGE, or a series of small pictures for the most major characters.--Monocrat 03:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Can't you cite the series itself as a resource? I realize it's a primary source, but it's a published source and highly verifiable. We cite primary sources in the form of research studies in numerous articles. The biggest problem with citing external sources is that outside of Wikipedia, your review sites are basically a bunch of blogs and barely say anything other than "I liked it". I suppose there are probably some magazines that cover anime series as well, but that's only helpful for establishing notability. When it comes to actual information about a series, wikipedia is often the best source outside of the series itself, because while our articles are often written by cruft loving fanboys, everyone else's articles are written by cruft loving fanboys who don't have rules against speculation. --tjstrf 12:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • comment There is a large amount of printed information available for the series in the form of the Continuity File books that were included with the LE DVDs and the kiddy Grade Conclusion book. Unfortunately it is all in Japanese but parts have been translated for the FUNimation site (which is all in Flash, but I have all the textual information extracted on disc). Shiroi Hane 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong merge. There's not going to be much you can say about these characters outside of plot summary or analysis of Kiddy Grade, and we really don't need 79 million articles all recapping the plot of one anime series. It's kind of a cheap shot to call Kiddy Grade minor, but it isn't exactly Mobile Suit Gundam or Walt Disney for lasting cultural impact. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. OH MY GOD! It isn't about wether or not we need them, you can't say that we don't need something just because you think we don't. Please if you are going to make such a comment, give a reason. You don't know these characters, there is plenty to say. It isn't about cultural impact either. I consider the a article to be pointless, it has little use, i think. But there are fans of series, people who are interested in anime. In just the same way that there are people interested in language and typography. No anime has cultural impact in the way you suggest it, but that doesn't stop us from writing articles. I can't believe that you are prepared to make such a statement. -end of rant- Apart from that, I have already said that a merge is not ideal. Articles sit for long periods of time, wallowing around doing nothing. You take the list of character and split them into their own areas and people can easily focus on adding pictures and writing informative long articles about characters. having it in one least, means that they are encouraged to just put basic information down, not to give detail. Wikipedia is a resource an infinite one, while you may not think it's necessary, each little article isn't exactly a waste of space, they are like 2 kb each for crying out loud. --Crampy20 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply He did give a reason: Lists allow for the exact same amount of useful information to be given as articles do, you do not need minor character articles. Seriously Crampy, you need to calm down, realize we aren't trying to remove any content, just place it in a list rather than individual articles. --tjstrf 12:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply Yeah I do agree with Tjstrf's statement and besides one thing I learned when I helped with the making of character profiles is that those with one or few paragraphs should deserve to be on the same page and only those with a large amount of paragraphs into a page which is not only why I supported having Seiryo Tennan, Misao Kuramitsu, and Seina Yamada to be made into their own pages. The point I am trying to make is that since most of these profiles have minor summaries then it would be a better idea to merge them together. I also agree that you should calm down, I mean even though I occasionally get stressed with things that occur on Wikipedia but I prefer to control my emotions and do the best I can to help even when something I worked for such as a type of category gets deleted. -Adv193 02:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I split the two main character's articles, listing changed to reflect this. --tjstrf 23:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. What's the problem here? These are perfectly acceptable article topics, and they don't none of them seem to fail any policies like NOR, NPOV or verifiability, and I'd say notability as well, for all that they aren't that great from various guidelines' perspectivies. --maru (talk) contribs 03:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As is stands, the article I am most in favour of deleting is one of the ones you have specifically not listed - Non-human Kiddy Grade characters. My reasoning being that, these are mecha, not characters (only the few mecha with advanced AI, e.g. Donner and Wirbelwind, could be considered characters), and the information would better serve being merged with the relevant character articles (e.g. merge the CC and Dodo information with the Tweedle Twins page) - provided of course that the character articles aren't actually deleted. Shiroi Hane 01:24, 31 July 2006 (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.
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia