Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryoga Echizen

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 Merge→Tennis no Ōjisama - Futari no Samurai—Such a merger could also take the form of a page List of The Prince of Tennis characters on the supposition that such a list would naturally be split from the main article if it reached logically inclusive proportions. However, I will start with a simple merger to the target article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoga Echizen

This is a non-notable character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the main article for the film, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and most of the other Prince of Tennis characters into a single character list or into the article on the movie, Tennis no Ōjisama - Futari no Samurai. --Farix (Talk) 00:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, in a much shorter form, to Tennis no Ōjisama - Futari no Samurai. Considering the movie article is barely more than a stub and this is a movie only character, there is certainly no reason to have him separate from it and alone, it completely fails WP:FICTION. Collectonian (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:FICT into Tennis no Ōjisama - Futari no Samurai. I can't find evidence that this character is independently notable, and as Collectonian notes, it's not like the movie article is large enough to require splitting up. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2007 (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.