Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryo Hazuki

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. As ever, a discussion on merging and/or redirecting can be commenced on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Hazuki

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep main character in a notable series of games. JuJube (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main protagonist. did the nom not read the first sentence even of the article, or does he seriously think that even main protagonists do not share in the notability of a fiction? Agreed, that for many minor fictions the two should be merged, but the nomination does not suggest that alternative. DGG (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they don't share notability. You can disagree with the main notability guideline all you want, but to reject it is just ridiculous. You can make an argument that sources are likely based on the main topic, but nothing more than that. This is just a repetition of the plot and other details in the main articles, so there is nothing to merge. TTN (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shenmue - TTN's logic is right - there's no demonstration of notability of the character on its own and the article presently is either duplicating the plot of the two games or WP:OR on his fighting style. Maybe there are sources, but that needs to be shown to keep this article -- and given the age and origin of the games, this I don't see happening. --MASEM 21:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to List of Shenmue characters (although that list's right of existance is also a little stretched for a 2-game series). Plot-only article (WP:NOT#PLOT) and no evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JuJube, DGG. Edward321 (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Two redundant plot summaries does not equal one article. Nifboy (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as the character has been the subject of prank phone calls, which has received some coverage here, here, and here (understanding that those aren't the best sources out there, they do establish some real-world notability as opposed for fictional characters). MuZemike (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how those even come close to asserting notability, let alone establishing it. If they were covered in actual reliable sources because they caused some sort of controversy, that would be one thing. These are just the average video game blogs grabbing ever minor video game related piece they can find. TTN (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs improving, not deleting. Last I checked the main character in a game released worldwide is notable. The article may not be the best, but I find the suggestion of deletion instead of a "simple" clean up and improvement laughable. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where was that? MuZemike (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above; the bulk of the article is plot information that should be summarized in the game's articles. Only the lead sentence is of encyclopedic interest, which can be included in the "list of characters" article (or in the game's article; my preference.) Marasmusine (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge Notable, but could just be included in main article. --Belinrahs (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as lacking significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N. There's some trivial coverage here, but that's not enough to pass WP:N. But good enough for a redirect, perhaps with a sentence or two. No prejudice against splitting this character out if there's enough reliable third-party coverage to support something non-trivial, that isn't just filled in with original research from primary sources. Randomran (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2008 (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.