Deletion of List of Rozen Maiden characters (2nd nomination)

Comment: and the fact that "''no'' third-party sources" is being used as a legitimate deletion rationale here leads me to suspect that somehow everyone was too lazy to  when !voting. Found in just a 5-minute Google search: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/gia-list/the-8-craziest-anime-families/2012-07-21 1, http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2011-02-15/tokyo-cafe-hosts-rozen-maiden-doll-exhibit 2, http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2015-04-10/ann-readers-koro-sensei-would-be-the-best-villainous-friend/.86967 3, http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2014-08-22/akihabara-fans-vote-for-favorite-silver-haired-heroine/.77807 4, http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2014/08/23-1/suiseiseki-and-souseiseki-figurines-from-rozen-maiden 5, http://www.manga-news.com/index.php/actus/2015/03/24/Suiseiseki-arrive-en-figurine-chez-Griffon-Enterprises 6, http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2015-03-10/rozen-maiden-shinku-gets-made-to-order-ceramic-figure/.85833 7, http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2013-07-07/rozen-maiden-zuruckspulen-limousine-spotted-in-akihabara 8. There's definitely more out there, |including Japanese sources, and the vast majority of anime reviews also include analysis on the characters
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:BIAS)

Comment: DragonZero is correct when they say that eyes outside WP:A&M are needed. Offshoot articles might be a precedent, but like here they quickly devolve into dumping grounds for |original research. One thing that used to happen in the past was that we had |"''X'' in popular culture" articles because the authors of the main articles would rather not deal with such content. However, that is what is needed and here DragonZero has merged any usable information on the ''main characters'' into the parent article. While main characters of series are often notable, side characters usually lack any coverage to write about them without devoting to original research or synthesis. This is the case here. Lastly we should remember why articles are split off in the first place: because of size; the content of this article would have been deleted in the main article because it is OR, or else the article would have never gotten to GA
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:IPCA)

Comment: I think it's something our project (A&M) should debate further and thoroughly (some time ago I had a brief debate with {{u|TheFarix}} for the sake of record https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGabriel_Yuji&type=revision&diff=620597217&oldid=620539951, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATheFarix&type=revision&diff=620598387&oldid=620574686). Most of :Category:Lists of anime and manga characters|these lists are just "let's get rid of content we don't want in the main page". Our policy on |stand-alone lists says "being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines." I think most lists are written in a completely -U perspective and don't comply with #Accuracy and appropriate weight as it can be said they are "disproportionately long plot summaries" about characters. To justify a stand-alone list I think there should be significant content to create a "conception" and a "reception" section so it will be balanced between in-universe and out-universe content (ex. List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters|here and List of Uncharted characters|here). And to justify the inclusion of a character in the list it should be considered the screen time the character has within the series or if the part it plays within the series is important
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:STAND||WP:IN||WP:WAF)

Comment: Reasonable  breakout of characters from a notable fictional franchise
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS)

Comment: fancruft, no third-party sources, in-universe content only (
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPLOT)