Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Juhachi (talk | contribs) at 04:42, 27 June 2007 (→Anime and manga). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Points of interest related to Anime on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment – Style – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Anime and manga. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
|
Anime and manga
- 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 wasDelete there was also substancial group opinion for a merge into Death Note, this article already has a plot section, character details, and section called Death Note all of which combine to provide more detail than that of this article. Gnangarra 11:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Plotline of Death Note (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete - The article is in violation of Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. 十八 04:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -WarthogDemon 04:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge trimmed content into the main Death Note article. This article goes into incredible detail. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge most of it to the episode list, which is currently about one sentence of summary per episode, the section on the pilot might be useful to the main article as well. --tjstrf talk 04:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I feel as if this is a violation of WP:NOT because WP:NOT states that Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries.--†Sir James Paul† 05:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per †Sir James Paul†'s comment above. Likewise, a simple summary, as provided on the Death Note article, is enough. Drumpler 06:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Merge per tjstrf. JJL 15:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply You mean redirect and merge, I hope. Deleting and merging has GFDL compliance problems. --tjstrf talk 16:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see a need for this particular term to be redirected; I'd suggest copying anything useful on this page to the Talk page of Death note, then deleting this page. JJL 16:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You can't merge information then delete the page. An accurate page history needs to be kept for the GFDL stuff. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Redirect and Speedy Merge as per User:tjstrf. Greg Jones II 16:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge per WP:NOT#IINFO. Either one works for me, we don't need more bloated plot summaries. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Although I personally have no problems with it, I'm wondering if "episode guides" would fall within the bounds of WP:NOT#INFO? Drumpler 19:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, though TV schedules (timetables) do. In fact, lists of episodes are one of our more common types of featured list. --tjstrf talk 19:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Sorry to interject here, I just had to know. :) Drumpler 20:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SS. Matthew 12:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SS is there so that reading artilces becomes easier and organization becomes better, but that in no way supports doing something like inane plot summaries.--十八 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An ecyclopedia is not a story book. Wikipedia is not Death Note. The sourced analysis parts (themes/meanings) can be merged, but most is just re-telling of the plot. --maclean 19:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Would we be permitted to write a more detailed re-telling of the plot under GFDL than the company who holds the copyright is willing to tell in their plot summaries? --maclean 19:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in agreement with the first post on here and that is, Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. I just think the simple description on the Death Note article itself is sufficient. Drumpler 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteWhile a longish summary is needed, this one is far too long, and crap.
- 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.
- 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. Sr13 03:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Plot of Hayate The Combat Butler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete - The article is in violation of Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. 十八 04:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - clearly violates WP:NOT. We're getting a plot summary deletion trend. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above. --Haemo 04:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge pruned detail into main article Hayate The Combat Butler. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a violation of WP:NOT. WP:NOT says: "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot."--†Sir James Paul† 05:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all "Plot of..." articles - clear violations of WP:NOT. Otto4711 13:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge, but don't just annihilate. --164.107.222.23 14:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. We don't need more bloated plot summaries. Bring on the next plot page! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SS. Matthew 12:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SS is there so that reading artilces becomes easier and organization becomes better, but that in no way supports doing something like inane plot summaries.--十八 14:02, 1 July 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.
- 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. --Coredesat 05:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Love Hina plot summaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete - Clear violation of WIkipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 12:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or merge or something. I'm sure there's a way to compromise and preserve the other editors' work. --164.107.222.23 16:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The amount of effort put into an article is irrelevant to whether or not it complies with policy. --Slowking Man 17:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia articles should not soley be plot summary. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 16:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say merging the information into Love Hina in much-condensed form seems like the best option. A general overview of the plot is fine, but the article as it stands is rather excruciatingly detailed and in-universe. --Slowking Man 17:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or userfy. As is, this page is rather unencyclopedic and useless. However, large portions of its content could probably be converted into acceptable articles by the addition of more information and cleanup. For instance, the volume summaries could be converted into a List of Love Hina manga chapters which contained both summaries and out-of-universe information. As the quality of writing is decent enough to be salvageable, deleting it entirely could simply force duplication of effort later on. Towards this end, if a Love Hina editor wishes to userfy the pages with the goal of reworking it into articles, I would support this. --tjstrf talk 18:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We have plot summaries for every major TV show whether the episode had notability or not. If it needs social commentary then add it. Always fix or flag, before deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If other similar articles exist, that does not necessarily mean that such articles are desirable. In the case of a show or episode with significant depth and cultural impact—say, Time Enough at Last—I can see the merit of devoting a significant portion of the article, or a separate article, to plot summary and analysis. However, this article seems to me to consist mostly of "X does Y; then Z happens," then repeat the formula. I don't think anyone's arguing that there should be no discussion of Love Hina's plot at all, but it seems to me that an adequately encyclopedic treatment of such could easily be part of the main article. --Slowking Man 00:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge in a more condensed form into Love Hina. Note that List of Love Hina episodes also exists. 132.205.44.5 01:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Richard Norton. Dilawar (t) 04:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. We don't need more bloated plot summaries. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is just plot summaries, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Jay32183 00:34, 30 June 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.
- 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. --Coredesat 05:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Love Hina timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete - Wikipedia is not for plot summaries and it looks to be chock full of original research. Otto4711 12:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, because timelines are a useful way for putting events in context and television shows to have large audiences of Wikipedians, so this could be of interest to our readers. --164.107.222.23 16:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Usefulness isn't a very compelling reason to keep plot summary, esepcially if it's the whole content of an article as it is here. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 16:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "This page is useful" is not a valid argument. Wikipedia is not a television guide. --Slowking Man 16:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Original research and plot summary do not belong on Wikipedia. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 16:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Original research, unencyclopedic. No cited sources, and appears to be little more than an in-universe listing of events. Such content would be more appropriate for a fan site. --Slowking Man 16:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the main article Love Hina somehow. 132.205.44.5 01:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dilawar (t) 04:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge/redirect to main Love Hina article. - Ranma9617 02:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is original research based on interpretation from plot and only plot. Fails WP:NOR and WP:NOT#PLOT by design. Jay32183 00:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Utterly useless for a general-purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia, although it would be suitable for specialized anime wikis. - Sikon 06:04, 30 June 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.
- 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 — Caknuck 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Chess Pieces (MÄR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Contested {{prod}}; the rationale advanced for removing the tag was "Let this page stay, it's a good info about the show's antagonists."[1] Yet as the primary editor of this article himself asserts, this article is "just another 'List of Characters' article."[2] This article blatantly fails to assert notability, despite repeated notifications of non-notability dating back to at least March 2007. In addition, the article has serious attribution deficiencies, as the only citations provided are to fan sites. A Google search reveals no evidence of reliable sources that would establish notability for this topic. This article is just another collection of fancruft and essentially original research. --Nonstopdrivel 14:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Let this page stay. We need a page for MAR's antagonists. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - per WP:FICT lists of characters which are too long for reasonable inclusion in the article for the series can be created. Otto4711 17:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Query In my reading of WP:FICT, I see no exception to the WP:A, WP:N, and WP:RS policies. Are you arguing that this article meets those guidelines? If the consensus is it does, I will be happy to withdraw my nomination. --Nonstopdrivel 17:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There's no reason for this specific article's deletion. It's no different from the hundreds of other List of ____ Characters articles, most for series less notable than MÄR. - The Norse 22:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As the points of argument fall solely on this article's failure to keep up with plot summary, source of citations and coverage criterias, remedial solutions are not entirely unavailable. It's still more preferable than deleting the article, which would bring about negative consequences. For the moment I will try to search for more sources. Profet 666 03:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, the crux of my argument, as I stated very explicitly, is that this article does not assert notability—and that there is essentially no evidence of notability to be found online. The vast preponderance of references to this show are on fansites and an occasional programming guide mention. This has been an ongoing issue since at least March 2007, and still little or no work has been done to rectify this fundamental flaw. --Nonstopdrivel 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Observation: Though it may not be germane to the AfD process, I would like to point out that to this point, the only respondents to this AfD have been regular contributors to this article (it is, in fact, these very editors I quoted in my rationale for deletion). Does anyone not closely connected with this article have any objective input that would be useful in obtaining a consensus? --Nonstopdrivel 04:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have not contributed anything to the article under consideration or to the article on the show and in fact had never heard of either until this AFD. Otto4711 12:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully my modest offering will sufficiently satisfy your demands of outside input, Nonstop.
First, let us establish some facts: Marchen Awakens Romance is an internationally published 15 volume book series, which has been adapted for television, has an upcoming sequel series, is by an established author, published by notable companies and in a notable magazine. As such, there is no question of the series's notability under Wikipedia:Notability (books). The page we are directly considering is a sub-article of the MAR page, split off from the main summary article solely due to length concerns and in accordance with Wikipedia's stylistic guidelines, such as WP:LENGTH and Wikipedia:Summary style. As such, it is a part of a larger topic and can for all intents be considered as a sub-section of the main MAR page, with its division into a separately titled page being purely nominal.
Lists of characters are an accepted section for articles on Wikipedia on works of fiction that are sufficiently complex that descriptions of their casts will be of encyclopedic assistance to our readers.
With these things established, the question now becomes whether the Chess Pieces are a sufficiently notable group within MAR that their description will aid readers in understanding the subject. It does. Keep. --tjstrf talk 07:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Keep -- this is far more than merely a list of characters, and appears sourced -- SockpuppetSamuelson 11:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The deadline of its deletion being... ? I want to have more time for the reference sections Profet 666 04:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion debates last more or less 5 days, so June 29-30 is the projected closing date, but there's no hurry since so far everyone but the nominator says it should be kept. --tjstrf talk 04:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it is essentually a subpage of MAR, which is notable enough (and long enough) to warrant a subpage to cover this set of characters together. John Vandenberg 05:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added several references for the page and there's more to come. Try them out with a translation tool. Profet 666 03:26, 28 June 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.
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fun With Akatsuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable YouTube-hosted parody of an anime series. Entire article is just a plot summary of the episodes. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB and WP:NOT. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh fun! Delete of course. YechielMan 21:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- See above — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisLamb (talk • contribs) 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfortunately non-notable, though mildly amusing. cab 00:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Youtube videos can become notable (e.g. Will It Blend), but these are not. No reliable independent third parties are discussing them. --Charlene 02:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sakujo. ...sorry, wrong series. Delete per nom. --tjstrf talk 06:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable... --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:09, 27 June 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.
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mobile Armour of the Universal Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Article created by a user who has been blocked for repeatedly re-creating deleted material. This article is a case in point, being an amalgamation of two articles which had been deleted at this AfD and this one. As it has some argument about notability in its edit history, I bring it to AfD. Quite apart from its history, it's not sourced by anything out-of-universe, with consequent worries about WP:V and WP:OR. EliminatorJR Talk 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In-universe timeline with probably irrelevant sources- after a few days, the creator just threw in {{UCMobileWeaponsRef}}.--Wafulz 00:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article is useless and is against the WP:GUNDAM actions of grouping. Told the user to stop, but he/she just keep ignoring all other editors. MythSearchertalk 02:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to be a worthless piece, ad as Myth said above, it's being done by users who don't know wp's notability guidelines. David Fuchs 14:29, 27 June 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.
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Plot of Naruto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The article is entirely plot summary. Main article contains a plot summary. WP:NOT#IINFO#7. Jay32183 05:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#IINFO,7 states "Wikipedia articles on published works should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Bolding is my own emphasis. This article is an aspect of the larger Naruto subject and was forked in a natural wiki process of keeping the core article concise. WP:NOT#IINFO,7 does not rule out this article existence by default. Please ensure all "delete" comments take this into account. –Gunslinger47 05:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An article may not contain only plot summary no matter what else going on. This article is designed to fail policy. Whenevr an article is "Plot of X" it fails WP:NOT#IINFO#7. The part of the larger topic means when the article contains real world information. In this case it is impossible. Any result other than delete is a violation of policy. There is no argument to keep, and there will never be one. Jay32183 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll need to help me understand this, because simply reading the section and #7 doesn't make the argument for deletion without prejudice very clear. This article was created as a fork of Naruto and is an aspect of the larger subject of Naruto. It is possible for articles containing just plot summaries to be appropriate. If I am misunderstanding this, please direct me to where your point is explicitly mentioned. –Gunslinger47 22:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your question would be answered if you read the first part of statement. It very specifically says that an article may not be only plot summary. The ending says that plot summaries may be included when talking about other stuff. This article does not talk about other stuff. You should also read WP:WAF. "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective." This article contains no out-of-universe perspective and there is no means to correct this problem. Jay32183 22:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conceded. –Gunslinger47 23:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that truly was the logical extent, then it would make sense to merge this, not to delete it. However, it seems pretty clear that the spirit of the rule is to make sure to include non-plot info about a work - that is, not that plot summaries are forbidden, but that when they are the only coverage of the work on wiki, they are not allowed. You know, part of that whole WP:Ignore all Rules, thing, instead of being needlessly bureaucratic.KrytenKoro 05:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conceded. –Gunslinger47 23:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your question would be answered if you read the first part of statement. It very specifically says that an article may not be only plot summary. The ending says that plot summaries may be included when talking about other stuff. This article does not talk about other stuff. You should also read WP:WAF. "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective." This article contains no out-of-universe perspective and there is no means to correct this problem. Jay32183 22:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll need to help me understand this, because simply reading the section and #7 doesn't make the argument for deletion without prejudice very clear. This article was created as a fork of Naruto and is an aspect of the larger subject of Naruto. It is possible for articles containing just plot summaries to be appropriate. If I am misunderstanding this, please direct me to where your point is explicitly mentioned. –Gunslinger47 22:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Jay, did you look at the previous AfD nominations for this topic? Unless you really think there will be a different outcome here than there was 2 months ago on Plot of Naruto: Shippūden, you may just be wasting our time here. --tjstrf talk 05:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as pure plot summary. Wikipedia plot summaries should be "treated briefly" (from WP:WAF). A summary detailed enough to require a spin off is too detailed. --Eyrian 05:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it's a plot summary, and as the nom points out, violates WP:NOT. Kwsn(Ni!) 05:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per clear violation of WP:NOT. Otto4711 06:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#IINFO,7 does not apply in this case, as I explain above. You'll need to explain yourselves more fully or your comments will not count. –Gunslinger47 20:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a mere plot summery. Also taken care of by List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 1-2), List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 3-4), List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 5-6), and List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 7-9). --Farix (Talk) 11:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above reasons. There is no need to go that in depth into a plot. It can easily be covered by the main article in general and the season articles can be used for giving details. TTN 12:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per TTN and Farix. We're better off working on List of Naruto chapters and List of Naruto episodes than keeping an unmanageable plot summary that is contrary to a number of Wikipedia guidelines (WP:NOT). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Additionally, this nomination also should've included Plot of Naruto: Shippūden, which continues on from this article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Including that would have almost certainly resulted in a no consensus. IPs and new users are much more defensive of the Shippūden summary than they are the Part I summary. ~SnapperTo 03:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Additionally, this nomination also should've included Plot of Naruto: Shippūden, which continues on from this article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Jesus Christ this article is long! --Potato dude42 04:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As a neutral party, I suggest a move to migrate whatever is written in this article into any established Naruto wiki licensed under GFDL. Deleting so many months of work is a plain waste. If this isn't acceptable in Wikipedia, at least hand it over to specilised websites. - 60.50.54.92 11:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I second that notion. Good idea. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overly detailed plot summaries are not GFDL compatible. They serve as a replacement for experiencing the copyrighted work. Jay32183 21:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I never stated any retention of everything. The purpose of the migration was to preserve at least a basic outline of the plot, and not necessarily every little detail in between, details which could affect the ability to market the copyrighted material. Cut down this article's size and remove every nitpick detail if you're not satisfied that it won't pass criteria of GDFL licensing; whatever is done after that in the destination Naruto wiki (expansion and return to overly detailed plots, deletion, etc.) is no longer our concern. Better yet, merge this article with the episode guides (as one has stated earlier), saving only plot overviews. - 60.50.54.92 02:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- There are already reasonable plot summaries in all the places that would be suitable targets for a merge. A merge is therefore innappropriate as it would only cause over bloating of the target article. Jay32183 03:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge doesn't always mean copy and past the information. In this case, it would require that people look over the salient details that might have been missed in existing plot summaries, and moving them there, while keeping the entire thing manageable. This series does not need this much plot summary. Wikipedia is not about plot summaries. Those summaries are merely there to give context to the discussion of real world impact. --Eyrian 04:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't suggest it would be a copy and paste. I said adding more plot details to the potential target articles is a bad idea because there would be too much. Jay32183 04:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I still endorse a migration to a Naruto wiki only if dramatic trimming is made on this article to summarise this whole mess. I'll leave it to others to develop a consensus on the fate of this article's merit in Wikipedia. - Two hundred percent 08:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't suggest it would be a copy and paste. I said adding more plot details to the potential target articles is a bad idea because there would be too much. Jay32183 04:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge doesn't always mean copy and past the information. In this case, it would require that people look over the salient details that might have been missed in existing plot summaries, and moving them there, while keeping the entire thing manageable. This series does not need this much plot summary. Wikipedia is not about plot summaries. Those summaries are merely there to give context to the discussion of real world impact. --Eyrian 04:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are already reasonable plot summaries in all the places that would be suitable targets for a merge. A merge is therefore innappropriate as it would only cause over bloating of the target article. Jay32183 03:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I never stated any retention of everything. The purpose of the migration was to preserve at least a basic outline of the plot, and not necessarily every little detail in between, details which could affect the ability to market the copyrighted material. Cut down this article's size and remove every nitpick detail if you're not satisfied that it won't pass criteria of GDFL licensing; whatever is done after that in the destination Naruto wiki (expansion and return to overly detailed plots, deletion, etc.) is no longer our concern. Better yet, merge this article with the episode guides (as one has stated earlier), saving only plot overviews. - 60.50.54.92 02:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overly detailed plot summaries are not GFDL compatible. They serve as a replacement for experiencing the copyrighted work. Jay32183 21:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I second that notion. Good idea. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I probably would have voted Keep a while ago, before the individual season articles were that well developed. I still think there needs to be a central summary (maybe not as detailed as this) of the Naruto plot, since we're kinda moving away from that on character articles... But I understand why this was nominated again. Right now, I think I'm gonna stay neutral, at least until I can collect my thoughts on the matter and express them more coherently.
This being said, I'm surprised that a massive influx of anon IPs and new user accounts havent already flooded this AFD... Maybe there's hope yet... --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 00:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Keep: Ther is no real reason to delete this article. It gives information, and is not destructive. It might be 95% plot summary, however, If the only way to tell the readers of wikipedia about this manga\anime is through a "Plot summary", then so be it. I don't think masshi Kishimoto is losing any sleep over the "Plot summary" anyway.busboy 05:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Why have a article on a plot summary? --Hirohisat Freedom of Speech 05:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We should SPLIT the articles instead. That way, we can still retain the information and keep articles to a minimum size. Mind you, there are various articles on characters of a TV series or a particular episode that are quite long yet they are not being nominated for deletion. -Omghgomg 12:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about length, it's that the article is nothing but plot summary. The article violates WP:NOT#PLOT by design. If we split the article then we have multiple articles that have nothing but plot summary and we've made things worse. Jay32183 17:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Furthermore, the article has already been split. As for the various single-episode articles for other works, they really shouldn't be there themselves unless something was especially notable about that particular episode. They exist, but that does not mean they are justifiable. You Can't See Me! 06:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. We don't need more bloated plot summaries. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think we've had enough time to transfer the info to other articles.Sam ov the blue sand 21:31, 27 June 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.
- 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 and redirect to InuYasha as there is nothing mergeable. --Coredesat 02:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Plot of InuYasha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries, per WP:NOT#IINFO. The main article contains an adequate plot summary. --Eyrian 19:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nominator - Not the place for plot summaries / season recaps Corpx 19:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as indiscriminate, and redundant to the main InuYasha article. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom and WP:NOT. Otto4711 21:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm a bit confused. What exactly qualifies it as to be AfD? Just being a plot summary? Does that mean Plot of Naruto and the many other pages out there like that are against WP:NOT#IINFO? --Zeno McDohl (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point 7 is about plot summaries. For everyone else, "IINFO" is an obsolete shortcut now, and should be avoided as it is misleading. –Pomte 03:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#IINFO takes one directly to the appropriate section of WP:NOT. And yes, Zeno, it's a good bet that the other similar "plot of" pages are also violations, and indeed they are being nominated and several have been deleted. Otto4711 04:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are a great many articles on InuYasha and it is a very very long series. There is no way that the summary in the main article can begin to do the series justice. This article is needed. If you think that it is sub-standard then be bold and improve it. But destroying the work of many people who built this article is counter-productive. JRSpriggs 08:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A page is not 'needed' if it goes against the policies of the encycloedia. As for 'destroying the work', well perhaps you should read the note at the bottom of the page EVERY time you make an edit. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge - Articles like this clearly shouldn't exist in the first place. If there is good (and sourced) material not found elsewhere, it could be trimmed and merged with a main InuYasha article. And from a skimming of some paragraphs, it sounds almost like original research of someone's analysis. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as mere plot summery. This is what List of List of InuYasha episodes is for. --Farix (Talk) 11:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are many other similar articles, why should this one be deleted? It does a good job at describing the plot of the series. If it seems redundant, why not remove most of the content on the main page regarding plot and provide a link? Articles like these should be kept out of the main article for the most part, a link will do. The anime is over and the manga is continuing, I wouldn't call a plot article "recaps", the plot is very important to the main InuYasha article, as it has a very long and complex story. We need to keep this article, if it gets deleted, the quality of the main article will drop for sure. If we delete this, then why not all plot articles? While we're at it, why don't we just delete articles on countries' histories and merge them into the main articles? It's madness. Also, if this article does happen to get deleted and replaced with the List of InuYasha episodes article, it will need someone serious improvements. The Plot of InuYasha article is fine, but the List of InuYasha episodes article is sorely lacking in material (and screencaps). --Mathew Williams 12:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like you ought to read WP:ATA. Your comment falls into at least two of those. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles on the plots of fiction are not comparable to articles on the history of actual existing nations. The notion that deleting a plot summary would implicate the existence of articles on actual real-world history is ludicrous. Otto4711 12:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And screencaps are generally not copyright free, and they need to be removed before reaching featured list status, meaning less screencaps is good. And you'll hear this time and time again. Just because the pages exist, doesn't mean they're not again wikipedia policy. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: List of InuYasha episodes only covers the anime, the manga is far more extensive, and List of InuYasha chapters only includes the Viz releases. The plot page is the only extensive summary of the series.--88wolfmaster 01:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per JRSpriggs and 88wolfmaster - Ranma9617 04:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Completely unnecessary to Wikipedia. --Potato dude42 04:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge if necessary and delete the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging is impossible as I explained, the manga in existance covers more than ANY article other than this one could support - it goes beyond the anime and the US releases.--88wolfmaster 02:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it could not be merged. --EAZen 05:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The (perhaps too subtle) point of my edit was to show that the content most certainly could be contained in a short section. Yes, details will be left out. But anything other than original source requires that details be left out. A plot summary that is too long not only exposes us to risks of copyright violation (people have stated that they use these summaries instead of watching), but it is fundamentally against the purpose of Wikipedia, which is about the real world. Fictional worlds impact real ones, but those impacts must be cited. This article has too few. --Eyrian 03:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't an AfD issue; what you state is an extension on policy that would remove extending plot summaries: books, episodes, radio shows, movies et c. If you feel current guidelines already exist for this, then you have a lot of AfD's to put out there. That goddam Stargate/Harry Potter/IP as Physical Property isn't going to delete itself. Unless, what you meant was the lack of sources; I believe that's a different tag. --EAZen 06:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAF states that plot summaries should be brief. Just because other articles would need to be deleted as well doesn't mean this one shouldn't be (please read WP:ATA). And the problem isn't lack of sources; it's unsourceability. A plot summary article can never be more than plot summary, which is unacceptable under Wikipedia policy(WP:NOT). This article will never be cited (to a secondary source) because there's nothing to cite it to. --Eyrian 04:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't an AfD issue; what you state is an extension on policy that would remove extending plot summaries: books, episodes, radio shows, movies et c. If you feel current guidelines already exist for this, then you have a lot of AfD's to put out there. That goddam Stargate/Harry Potter/IP as Physical Property isn't going to delete itself. Unless, what you meant was the lack of sources; I believe that's a different tag. --EAZen 06:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The (perhaps too subtle) point of my edit was to show that the content most certainly could be contained in a short section. Yes, details will be left out. But anything other than original source requires that details be left out. A plot summary that is too long not only exposes us to risks of copyright violation (people have stated that they use these summaries instead of watching), but it is fundamentally against the purpose of Wikipedia, which is about the real world. Fictional worlds impact real ones, but those impacts must be cited. This article has too few. --Eyrian 03:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it could not be merged. --EAZen 05:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Only portions of this article are redunant in the main article summary, and the anime cuts off too early to be a useful source of summaries. Furthermore the collected Manga summaries are, due to chapter releases, behind the continuously appended version of this article. This article does not out-live its usefulness until the Manga ends (which is at least another year from now) and the chapters are finally completed and available. --EAZen 05:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - what everyone seems to be forgetting when citing WP:NOT is that "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic". Inuyasha is a larger topic, thus this does not violate that guideline. Now, it does certainly need to be rewritten, as it is confusingly worded/structured and close to copyright violation in places, but its very existence is not wrong. As for the list of anime episodes, or a paragraph or two being acceptable - even though I'm not a fan, I can recognize that the thing is basically a soap opera. Even if you trimmed and summarized as much as possible, you're still going to end up with something that is ridiculously long - it would take up more than 50% of the entire page about Inuyasha. Furthermore, the anime stops covering the story quite early on. KrytenKoro 05:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. PART of a larger topic, which means not as its own article. That's why this page breaks the rule. How much of it all is importent to the overall arc of the entire story, that can't be covered in other places (character articles, etc)? I don't know Inuyasha, but I DO know Takahashi's other popular manga, Ranma. And in Ranma, the answer is really very little. The series is pretty much all self-contained, with very little actual progression once one gets past about volume five or so. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have not read Ranma 1/2, but I can assure you that most of the information in InuYasha is important to the overall story. The story progresses quite a bit throughout when it comes to the characters, abilities, etc. The story is very long and complex, and if the plot article is improved enough, it will help the reader understand the story. --Mathew Williams 04:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The problem with this article is there is NO other place for the entire series to go. I am not saying that the article does not need work, but honestly where could you add major plot developments from the latest chapters written (there aren't any more episodes and Viz can only translate manga so quickly). as to importance, the anime just ends without a resolution so fans have to turn to the manga to get that resolution. and in regards to people just reading the summary and not buying the graphic novels, you can't stop them from doing so any more than you can stop free scans on the web - where there is a will there is a way--88wolfmaster 06:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Farix. -- Jelly Soup 08:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Since "Wikipedia articles on published works should contain [...] not solely a summary of that work's plot," which is exactly what this article contains: solely a summary. Also delete per my personal believe that if reading a Wikipedia article on any fictional work serves as an alternative to actually reading or watching said work, then the article must be trimmed. (or in this case, deleted)--Nohansen 11:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. We don't need more bloated plot summaries. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just a plot summary, which is a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT Jay32183 21:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Alot of these votes on both sides of the argument look like WP:JUSTAVOTE to me. Votes without a valid arguement should be ignored in my opinion. I don't mean that we should decide which arguements should be counted and which ones shouldn't. But a vote that only includes a message like "per (insert name here)" or an extremely short comment should not count. --Mathew Williams 01:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Echoing another's sentiments can be a way of indicating that you agree with their logic and that it is a valid claim to make. It can add weight to the argument if others think it is convincing. --Eyrian 01:29, 28 June 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.
- 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 nya nya. --Coredesat 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, however, unfortunately does not qualify for the narrow definition of A7. Leuko 16:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Comment Since the AfD, the article seems to have changed dramatically. Delete per WP:HOAX. I can't seem to find any Grove Gazette that backs this. Looks like some school kid's (ongoing) prank.--Ispy1981 16:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- the grove gazette was an english magazine made by our council for school kids so and its still going go in any newsagents in w.yoks and you'll find it. Kohaku-x 16:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Magazines by "council for school kids" avaliable only in "newsagents in w.yoks" are not notable Corpx 17:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia is not for things made up in school and a hoax. The article is completely unverifiable. P.S. Does anyone else notice that this outline copies the story line of Tokyo Mew Mew? --Farix (Talk) 17:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My son used to recieve the grove gazzete its been going where i live for years. I remeber that manga series. I have reviewed the page of tokyo mew mew and from what i can see the only thing that is alike is the fact that one of the main characters has been infused with the DNA of a cat.Reynaldsaimee 17:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC) — Reynaldsaimee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment The above user created their account five minutes before posting here and has only posted here.--Ispy1981 18:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence the {{spa}} tag. :-) Leuko 18:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. The spa tag was added while I was checking on the user.--Ispy1981 20:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence the {{spa}} tag. :-) Leuko 18:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
how much evidence do you need? [3]
i can provide as much info as you like. if you seriously think someone would make something like that up you are very mistaken. the school was grove lea,hemsworth,w.yorks the head master mrs mcnichol and the other producers and workers for the gazzete were kane rush, amber milnes, georgina akyroyd and kim mitchum if you need any more info ask me on my email: (email and phone removed. Posting personal contact info is not a good ideaEdison 19:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)) 18:19, 23 June 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovescene123 (talk • contribs).— Lovescene123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete Wikipedeia is not for things made up in school one day. Edison 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ditto. Chris 19:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- i dont see why smaller things cant be put on an encyclopedia. just because you may or may not think its important doesn't mean *someone else won't.smaller things should not be tossed aside because there small. it's just like tossing something aside for its height,age or physical factors.Kohaku-x 19:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- here's the website http://neko-nya-nya.piczo.comKohaku-x 19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesnt belong in an encylopedia because it is not notable. Corpx 19:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That poorly made website only proves that the topic is not notable. Corpx 19:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- fine then delete it i can't be bothered arguing with a load of internet geeks about a manga series but dont you dare dis the site!!thos drawings took ages aswell as the whole comic me and most of the people who got the gazette think its important. if it gets deleted i hope your happy. i bet you couldnt draw much better when you were 12 anyway comment added by Kohaku-x
- Comment Could the above comment be contrued as a form of db-author (CSD G7)? --Ispy1981 20:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For starters, knock it off with the sockpuppets, it reflect poorly on you. Second, the lack of professional quality of the website is a very good indication to us that the subject is not notable. Any idiot can put up a website, so a website alone is not proof of anything. That is why Wikipedia relies on reliable third-party sources. Third, I remind you to be civil and do not engaging in personal attack on other editors. --Farix (Talk) 20:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyDelete for absolute lack of reliable sources to back this up. Even if there were, the article itself is illiterate and practically incomprehensible. Sorry, kids, but WP:MADEUPpretty much rules herepretty clearly applies in this case. --Nonstopdrivel 20:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- In the kids' defense, though, I will say that as crappy as that website is, I couldn't have done Flash animation at 12. But that's irrelevant anyway. --Nonstopdrivel 20:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but I don't think this meets any of the speedy criteria per se. Pascal.Tesson 21:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not meet WP:NOTABLILITY (Duane543 04:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete this article does not belong on wikipedia because its not really notable but you have to give the kid some credit those drawings and that site isn't that bad to say that there only 12 . Missnamine 14:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete hoaxalicious, plus it's a comic book, not an anime. (And IMO the drawings *are* that bad.) JuJube 23:32, 24 June 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.
- 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. If any articel about the author existed, i would have closed this as a merge, but it doesn't, and i don't quite see a clear keep consensus. DES (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy nomination; Article about a short Manga series that makes no assertion of notability, and contains virtually no information on the series itself. Google didn't turn up much other than records on some Anime Databases, which simply state when the series was published in Japan and not much else. One website had a synopsis, but this would not establish notability. Apparently this series hasn't been released in English. As far as I can tell, this fails WP:BK. Rackabello 16:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Based on google hits. Corpx 16:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, there are quite a few ghits but by themselves these do not establish notability or justify keeping the article. Although it does seem like B-Wanted may have a small cult following (I did discover some fan art), all I've found contentwise in English on this series is one short synopsis and a few Anime directories with publication information. Beyond the notability issues, I don't see the point in having an article on the English Wikipedia about an untranslated Japanese Manga series that has virtually no information on it other than a cover shot and ISBN numbers of the Japanese releases. Rackabello 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to put things in prospective, I did a search of the Japanese Wikipedia for B Wanted and nothing came up Rackabello 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - series not notable even on the Japanese Wikipedia. ja:えぬえけい is the page for the author, and B-Wanted is the only one of her manga that doesn't have a page. If someone wants to make a page for the author and her other works too, that would be fine, but having a page for her least notable work seems like skewed priorities. Doceirias 10:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article lacks context as to why there is an article on this manga. Also the lack of available and verifiable information will prevent this article from growing into anything more then a stub. The best solution would be to create an article about the manga's author and redirect this there. Long and short of it, we shouldn't have these kinds of articles that tells us nothing more then "XYZ is a manga" but provided no additional context in the first place. Unfortunately, Category:Anime and manga stubs is littered with these kinds of sudo-stubs. --Farix (Talk) 12:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge?. The series is possibly notable per WP:BK, but has no English presence, so it's rather impractical for us to write an article on it. I'd suggest merging it to the author's page, but it doesn't exist. However, since according to the ja.wiki link provided above there are several series by the author, I think we can safely presume her notable enough for a page. --tjstrf talk 18:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to author's page. I created the (stub) article as it was requested on Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Japan/Anime_and_Manga. I had heard of the manga too, even though I live in Belgium and am not a die-hard shōjo otaku, so I figured it was notable. But if it's not on the Japanese wiki (didn't know - can't read it), I guess it's not notable in the end. If the author's notable, she could have an article with the info in it. Maybe the manga article request page should be adjusted, having requesters include a 'proof of notability' when they request an article, so this sort of situation is less likely to happen in the future. Ninja neko 20:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There were six volumes published by a major publisher, and it was serialized in a major manga publication. So far as I'm concerned that's enough to make it noteable. Snarfies 14:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The problem here isn't notability, I think most of us agree that it is technically notable. The problem is that there's simply nothing to write about here. --tjstrf talk 17:18, 2 July 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.
- 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. —Kurykh 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Plot summary of Madlax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete - Clearcut violation of Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 22:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Clear-cut case. --Haemo 00:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Cool, I didn't know about that rule. %) Just make sure you delete ALL plot summaries out there, not just this one. ;) --Koveras ☭ 07:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in large part because it is redundant to List of Madlax episodes which contains the same information in a more encyclopedic fashion. --Farix (Talk) 12:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Potato dude42 04:25, 25 June 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.