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 contents and redirect title. Consensus is that the contents are non-encyclopedic and should be removed. However, it was felt that for someone doing a search on "Hades Alone" the title should be redirected to nearest available useful article, Currently this is List_of_Saint_Seiya:_The_Lost_Canvas_characters#Alone and so the title will be pointed there. However, it appears that the series of articles surrounding Saint Seiya: The Lost Canvas are of questionable notability and may not survive an AfD - in which case, this redirect should be updated to point to the then most appropriate article. SilkTork *^YES! 16:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't understand what this article is talking about. It seems to be something written in an in-universe style, but there doesn't seem to be any context. —Bkell (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

From my talk page:

Sorondil: This article is detailing the character of Hades Alone and simplifiying the Saint Seiya Lost Canvas character section. I added a Trivia part which you are intending to delete as well. I did the same some weeks ago with Pegasus Tenma's Section and nobody complained. —Sorondil (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wonder if this post is deleted, any user won't be able anymore to make modifications and make a special section for all Lost Canvas' characters. Bkell, by the way, I didn't understand the "in-universe" issue, what is affecting the topic in the modifications I made? Please could you be so kind in explaining me this? Thank you. —Sorondil (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read The problem with in-universe perspective? —Bkell (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think rather than deleting the "trivia" or "other facts" section, this could be submitted in a special section for Hades Alone and not just put a short paragraph describing this character as there is much to see yet about this character.

Yes, I read that in-universe thing, as I said, this could be edited and ordered to not affect Wikipedia's standards but not deleted, that's my point.

Sorondil (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Incomprehensible and without any indication of notability. It is about a character in a manga (not that this is particularly obvious from reading it). The only reference is the manga itself. Even if the manga itself is notable, it is highly unlikely that the individual characters from it are separately notable. There is an absolutely massive walled garden of articles and categories around this series of manga and I think that it needs looking at as a whole as I will bet that a lot of it needs merging or deleting. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to Hades_(Saint_Seiya), which is talking about the same character (this took me a lot of googling/wikilink following to find out lol). "Hades alone" is just an incarnation of this character. Sticky Parkin 19:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Hades_(Saint_Seiya) is also entirely unreferenced. It may be more coherent but is it any more encyclopedic than this article? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to the Lost Canvas character list. Almost all Saint Seiya characters need deletion or merge.Tintor2 (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I understand this sort of contributions are no longer aloud in here. If the pegasus Tenma's article has similar characteristics, the best will be to delete it as it is similar to this article, both of them edited by me, that's all.

Sorondil (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — incomprehensible as written. No indication of notability. — ERcheck (talk) 21:56, 3 January 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.