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. I know there are some weak keep arguments, but there are good ones too and very little are supporting deletion - so close to a snowball here. JForget 22:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgom[edit]

Gorgom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No sources to establish notability outside that of the fictional universe. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: We're working on it.Fractyl (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: List of characters from a notable television series. Its inclusion in the parent article Kamen Rider BLACK would make the article way too clunky and long. Fractyl has been attempting to include more real world information in the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not the place for these kind of lists. These kind of lists are better suited to Specialty wikis, such as Wookiepedia, or other such fiction-specific wikis. Secondly, notability is not inherited.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That is your own personal feelings on the matter. The subject would is notable for inclusion if it were a part of a larger article. Right now it is not because it has expanded beyond fitting in the original article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, it isn't. I suggest you read WP:NOT.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a list of fictional characters. I fail to see how it is not notable for inclusion because there are "no sources to establish notability outside that of the fictional universe". I've never seen that as a deletion rationale for a list of characters. And that is the last I am going to say on the matter. In March, you went on a spree listing every single page for deletion. This just seems to be an extension of those actions months later.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me clarify something. If there should be any form of eliminating this from the main space, the usable content (major characters within the list, the barebones list of monsters) should be merged into Kamen Rider BLACK as the article, as is, is too large to be flatout merged. Deletion is a ridiculous overreaction. Also, it is going to be nigh impossible to find sources in news and the like for characters from a 22 year old Japanese television series. The Japanese name shows up over 30 thousand times in Google, several examples on the first page being fansites dedicated to the fictional antagonists. These two [1] [2] are clearly about the subject, which is all that one can really find for such an old series. For those who cannot read Japanese, there are nearly 60 times as many google hits, including "Rider" as a way to get rid of false positives.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — take it to Wikia; this is not a fansite. Unsourced, non-notable, plot, cruft, yada, yada... Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: we will work in this article ASAP! --Punk 911 (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So what are you saying, that you were just going to let it sit otherwise? Working on the article means nothing unless you can find sources.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  He's saying that it can be improved. Like all articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Let this page stay. We worked so hard on this one to get the monster info. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should read policies/guideleines like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NOT and WP:NOTABLE before making arguments like that here. Arguments like "but we worked so hard on this" is not going to help anything. This is Wikipedia, not a fansite. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Ryulong. Edward321 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is one of those sad examples of Wikipedia deletion-bait. It's arguably notable enough for a short treatment, but the fact that it's so extensive actually works against its cause, making it far too tempting a target. However, other than its length, there's nothing compelling about deleting it. -Miskaton (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I await to hear the opinions of those not in the project.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What "project"? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This one.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you awaiting opinions from non-"project" people? Not that I object, but I'm just wondering. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Because so far, everyone that has been working on these article has voted to keep, while one non-project member has voted to delete. That is what it looks like.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I am a member of that project too. Do you think the project members aren't as neutral as non-project members? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So far you're the only one who has shown otherwise.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Everyone that is in that project, besides you, wishes to keep a NN article, despite the fact that it doesn't even meet GNG.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have an opinion on whether the page should be kept, actually. My reply to Rtkat3 was based on the fact that the argument is invalid for any AfD, and the links I provide are used as a way to understand when pages should and shouldn't be here. For this article, I'm neutral. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems to be a very poor idea. Just because you think this article is of a non-notable subject does not mean that others do as well. Edward321 and Miskaton are both not members of WP:TOKU. And they made their own decisions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The information wouldn't fit in the main article, that's why character lists are usually a separate article. It list all the bad guys from a notable series. Dream Focus 06:22, 31 July 2009 (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.