Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undead (Kamen Rider)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 01:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undead (Kamen Rider)

Undead (Kamen Rider) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:N. Unnotable race of monsters in Kamen Rider Blade with no significant coverage in any reliable, third party sources. All sources added after AfD are from the official series website, and do not establish any notability. Nothing but plot and a big list of the 52 "monsters-of-the-day" seen in the 49 episode series. Already well covered by a single paragraph in the main article. Tagging for notability since March 2008. Collectonian (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

But it's still being worked on, it's a part of the show. It does'nt need to be deleted, only updated to meet requirements. Fractyl (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It can't meet the guidelines, and nothing has been done to it since it was tagged. Collectonian (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, would like you like to help in the matter? I have already posted this to WikiProject Tokusatsu. Fractyl (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm helping by nominating it for deletion. You never should have created it in the first place. They have no real world notability and a listing of all of them is completely unnecessary. Also, your post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu [1] is worded in such a way that it appears to be canvassing. Collectonian (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I did to move some space. But, I'm improving the Undead's profiles by first adding the references of the Undead that appeared in the series.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fractyl (talk • contribs) 10:10, May 8, 2008
The references are all for the official site and do not address any of the issues given as reasons for deletion, namely the lack of real-world notability and significant coverage in THIRD-party sources, meaning sources other than the show itself, its official websites, or other official/production materials. Collectonian (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, why don't you tell me just how to do that? I'm reformating the page to make it like the Fangires. Fractyl (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I just did. If you want to prove this is notable, YOU must find reliable sources that give the topic of the Undead group/species significant coverage. That doesn't include fansites either, and not minor mentions. Collectonian (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the contents of the article can be supported by independent sources, and have the notability of the subject demonstrated by independent sources. It is a question of verifiability. 1 != 2 16:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep; it's a list of characters from a notable television series. Most of the article is in fact a sub-article of Kamen Rider Blade which is what the content came from, without much change from the original article. The existance of this article keeps the main article uncluttered, even though the article could suffice better as a list. I will look for references later, because they certainly do exist.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Adding links to a bunch of fansites and blog listings does not meet the requirements for notability as they are not WP:RS. Collectonian (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Those sorts of links are to be avoided. In this case, they serve to show that the item referenced exists (also Nirasawa's page would count as a reliable source, seeing as he's the one who designed all of the characters).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    No, they don't. They do not show that there is any significant, THIRD party coverage. Nirasawa's sight is not a third-party source either. These are extremely basic rudiments of WP:RS and WP:N, something an admin should know well.Collectonian (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Then the other websites, the ones that aren't personal websites or blogs, fulfill third-party coverage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    And those are? All I see are official sites, the creator's sites, and non-reliable personal sites, fansites, blogs, etc. Collectonian (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Megahobby is not a fansite or the creators site or an official site. It is a third party website that covers the toys and other paraphernalia, which in this case covers the figurines.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    That speaks to the series as a whole, not the undead (and one single link is not enough for notability) nor significant coverage. Collectonian (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    That is about specific Undead and the fact that they were made into figurines. That has nothing to do with the series as a whole, and the other links, despite being less than reliable sources, work for just the Undead. The information is verifiable, the subject is notable, and there are reliable sources that mention the subject in a non-trivial manner.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    They are still figurines for the series, just like almost every other series, and selling toys is not significant coverage. The subject is not notable, except for you. You've already confirmed, they are not reliable sources. You have yet to produce multiple reliable source actually covering the specific subject of the Undead species in Kamen Riders in significant detail.Collectonian (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    The figurine stores are reliable sources, because those particular Undead are the only ones made into toys. Those do cover the subject of the Undead in Kamen Rider Blade as their impact on the real world. The article need not be deleted, as Krimpet says below. The content needs to be reworked and maybe merged back into the parent article, or simply remove the excessive plot summary. Not delete the whole article. These are fictional characters belonging to a notable television series. There are references to both the primary source as well as secondary sources, which only you have argued as being dismissable because they are blogs or they are personal websites or they are stores or they're the official website of the designer. This is about characters from a nearly four year old Japanese television show. Treat it as that, instead of as a "species."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    Then shove the few maybe half-way sort of main ones into the character list where they belong. Collectonian (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    That's sorta been taken care of, with the major Undead that actually had a part in the story. The Jokers are purposely left out as they are alter egos. Fractyl (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Though my previous postings may had said it, I also like to this page to remain to be worked on. Fractyl (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I could find no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources independent of the coverage. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 23:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't know enough about the subject to comment either way, but since this covers one piece of a whole fictional work, I think this would be better left to a merge discussion on the article's talk page, rather than an AfD. krimpet✽ 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
As noted in the nom, they are already adequately covered in Kamen Rider Blade so nothing to merge. Collectonian (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Even if people are sure 100% of the necessary information has been merged in, keeping a redirect in place would still be beneficial for our readers. Additionally, as some of the information in that main article may have been merged in previously, it's best to keep the history in place for GFDL reasons. krimpet✽ 01:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep asa list, rather than the individual monsters. This sort of compilation is the way to handle the barely notable. I cants see why te information is any worse here than in the main article. DGG (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - If this does get deleted, in no way should it be remade into a redirect. If you come looking for information about the Undead as they pertain to Kamen Rider Blade, the vast majority of users won't type in Undead (Kamen Rider), because most users don't notice or care about disambiguations. They'll probably go directly to the series article to see what it says, then see, perhaps, that it links off to another page and go there. As for what to do with this article, however, I think a rework is in order, before any other action is taken. Describe the Undead as a whole, first. Then, the half-dozen genuine characters in the bunch can get their own sections. Isaka, Evolution Tarantula, guys like them. The rest can be mentioned in a blurb at the bottom, perhaps, if that's even neccessary. The cannon fodder Undead might be well-served by just a description in the lead, mentioning the whole concept of the Undead. Y'know? Howa0082 (talk) 18:05, 11 May 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.