Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Senran Kagura 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 delete and redirect to Senran Kagura. Sandstein 12:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Senran Kagura characters[edit]

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

This unsourced list of characters is not independently notable from the main series, as shown through its available secondary sources. Alone, it lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It could be deleted or redirected to a character section in its parent series article. czar 21:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. czar 21:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 21:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel this comment from User:TheFarix summarizes the situation nicely, which I shall copy-paste here for convenience:

Character lists are accepted spin-outs of their parent article. Their notability is tied to the notability of their parent article, the work of fiction. There is plenty of past precedent that character lists, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Digimon Adventure characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kodomo no Jikan characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jormungand characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rozen Maiden characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Initial D characters and teams, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Haré+Guu characters. The rare cases where character lists were not kept is because it was duplicated by another list, merged into a related list, or whose parent article was not notable.

Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to check those links—they are choice selections of mostly low-traffic AfDs brigaded by the same group of editors repeating the same tautological argument about precedent with no substantive argument for bypassing the general notability guideline. All our extant guidelines (incl. common outcomes and notability for fiction) require lists of fictional elements to have a source- and content-based reason for splitting. The list in question doesn't cite a single source so it's hard to argue that it couldn't be covered more summarily in its parent. czar 01:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Each character list has its own soul in my opinion, this being said I feel that this one would benefit from a dose of WP:TNT. Yes Farix pointed out other examples but those were in better shape. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite being a franchise, it needs some WP:TNT for lack of sourcing, and doesn't have the individual titles that focus on specific characters as notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Senran Kagura. I agree with the TNT comments and more concise descriptions can fit into the main article. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The king of the sun (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Senran Kagura. The article is a huge mess and it would probably be easier to TNT it, but the content should probably go somewhere. What could be done is to remove the cruft and simply add whatever is left to the parent article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as any basic information is imaginably better at the series' article and is questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 25 March 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.