Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kekkei genkai

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. Neil ☎ 13:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kekkei genkai

This fictionaly concept lacks real world notability. The article is beyond help and cannot be cited with reliable secondary sources to meet WP:FICT. Pilotbob 04:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 04:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The beyond help claim is beyond ridiculous, as there is almost never no such thing. So too is the claim of no cites to be found. I won't say this is a bad-faith nom, but it shows a decided lack of willingness to read into what is being deleted. Past that bit of rationale battering, keep because these abilities are important plot devices, second to maybe the funny demon plot devices. The Sharingan in particular, enough so that you can get your contacts to look like it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources seem questionable (for example, First Official Data Book) and there is nothing to indicate that this concept has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Pilotbob 05:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a primary source. Granted, the article does need the <ref> version of citations, but this is a reason to tag, not delete. Second, I'd say 158,000 Google hits for Sharigan establishes notability, at least in that one instance. I'll admit that finding a non-fansite among that mess of crap would be difficult, but it's obviously a notable subject. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we know of it doesn't mean it's notable. Wikipedia has policies on what is notable and what is not, and according to those, this obviously isn't. Primary sources are all that's available. Reliable secondary sources are needed to establish notability. Subdolous 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Important plot devices" does not mean notability. Per WP:PLOT, a subject that warrants its own article must pass notability requirements, have real-world relevance, and have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, none of which is the case here. Subdolous 15:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the problem is that it lacks secondary information. Having an article on Sharingan perhaps isn't a bad idea but a good fiction-related article needs both in-universe and out-of-universe information to warrant a page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed on all points made by Soneguy. What the article needed was to be tagged and the editors being told "Get some Refs!" not "This ain't got no Refs, delete!".--TheUltimate3 10:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If there's no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, then it must be deleted because it is not notable. A work of fiction may be notable while the specific details within it are not. Subdolous 15:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Article has references where needed, IMO, and if there needs to be more, somone should find them, this article is significant to the overall plot and should be kept. ~~Chipmonk328 2 November 2007~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.102.43 (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This comment was actually made by 70.128.102.43 (talk), who has done few or no other edits outside of this afd. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References may confirm the content, but do not establish notability if they are all primary sources. Notability is defined on Wikipedia as significant coverage of the article subject in reliable secondary sources. That is not the case here. Subdolous 17:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's really of no use to keep the article if secondary sources don't exist. The Naruto databooks probably aren't reliable sources since they're mainly exclusive to Japan. Any databooks released in the U.S. are scanlations far as I know. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Since Naruto and this subject are Japanese, the authoratitive sources will likewise be Japanese. Such as the cited databooks. Colonel Warden 10:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge There's a huge amount of Naruto-related material and this chunk of content just needs work as part of Wikipedia's coverage of this notable subject. The best sources are in Japanese, I suppose - can't help there. Colonel Warden 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Naruto is notable is irrelevant. The subject of this article is "Kekkei Genkai." That subject is not notable per wikipedia's criteria: Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. All sources, even the "best" ones to which you refer, are primary sources, and cannot be used for establishing notability. Subdolous 19:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be mistaken. The Data Books which are cited seem to be synthetic secondary sources. It's the videos, manga and games which are the primary sources. Other secondary sources include coverage in magazines such as Neo (magazine). Naruto seems to be the most popular anime and so has spawned a vast corpus of secondary material - about 60 million ghits. Asserting that there cannot be adequate sources amonsgt all this seems fanciful. Colonel Warden 00:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like Someguy said, the nomination shows a particular unwillingness to read into the deleted material. Also the fact is that the article can be cited with secondary information if people just look for that particular info and include it in the article, but the problem is that most of us are either in school and/or have work to do, so we don't have time. Don't talk about the article as being beyond help, because all the original argument is when you look at it is a cover up of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 20:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC) User's name has been changed to Sasuke9031 and vote changed, striked out accordingly. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love Naruto as much as any fan, but that doesn't make a specific concept within the Naruto universe notbale by wikipedia standards. I don't think you understand the criteria of notability. The criteria is that the subject must have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. That's what's meant by "secondary sources". Just as WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid argument, a thinly-veiled coverup of WP:ILIKEIT such as your post is just as vacuous. Subdolous 20:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well subdolous, you are entitled to your own opinion, but this article was nominated as part of a deletion spree made by User:Pilotbob This user refuses to fix the articles. Maybe this article is not really notable, but instead of tagging for a deletion as part of a deletion spree, shouldn't we work to actually FIX the article? Keep on new evidence of deletion spree and User:Pilotbob's continued bad faith. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 21:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you said is relevant to the notability of the subject at hand. A lack of notability can't be "fixed." Also, PilotBob has not shown any particular bias towards this particular subject in relation to his other deletion opinions. Deletion, if done according to wikipedia's policies, is an improvement on the quality of wikipedia, which is certainly the case here. I also think that, given your username and blatant disregard for wikipedia policy and guidelines, that you are too emotionally invested in the subject of the article to make a fair assessment. Subdolous 21:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been accused of bad faith and my user space has been vandalized due to this AFD. However, I feel that I am doing the right thing. I don't feel that this article can pass the standards set forth in Wikipedia policy so it does not belong here. I fail to see how this is bad faith. Pilotbob 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pilotbob, are you sure that this and this was a response to this afd? Would everyone here support the creation of a Sharingan/Byakugan article? Those links that Someguy provided are good OOU information just for that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Sharingan/Byakugan would pass WP:N either. A website selling sharingan contacts can hardly be considered a reliable source. Subdolous 22:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subdolous, I am being led to believe that you are a meatpuppet for Pilotbob and thus yoor opinion has no weight on this discussion. Besides, I believe that we have more keeps than delete's anyway so why are you getting so worked up about this subject? ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 22:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't go throwing accusations, now, Itachi. Just because pretty much the only thing this user has done is vote in AfDs, doesn't mean he's a meatpuppet. It's similar tastes at best. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not affiliated with pilotbob in any way, shape or form. I'm sure our editing histories will show this. You (ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin), on the other hand, have significant bias that is obvious in your choice of username, and self-admitted in your user page. Also, these discussions are not votes. If the arguments presented by the "Keeps" are invalid, which they are, as I have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, based on the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, then they would not and should not be counted. Subdolous 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTo be fair, I don't think Someguy (and by extenion, me) should be lumped into the "Keep arguments aren't valid." Someguy actually had good points.--TheUltimate3 23:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has his opinions of what's valid and so do we. Best not to turn this into a slugging match over it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can say that with a straight face after reading my userpage AGAIN and seeing my entry on WP:CHU. More to the point, my argument was more of a support to Someguy and TheUltimate3 than anything YOU claim it to be. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can say it with a straight face because we can see the history of your userpage, and your new name still implies a view on this subject that is hardly neutral. The most important thing is still the fact that this subject is not notable per wikipedia's policies because it has no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I don't see anything on this page that dispute that fact, and that unfortunately is the criteria for notability; if it fails that criteria, then it should be deleted. As I said I love Naruto a lot myself, but policy is policy. Subdolous 23:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I hate to point out the obvious, you should read before making blanket statements like that.

WP:N: This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page.

It is not policy, it is a guideline. Likewise, this is one of those situations where common sense comes into play. This is a topic that was split at some point to accommodate information that is important to the understanding of the series. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It hardly means it is to be ignored, either. Common sense also doesn't mean "if I like it it should stay" (and I do like Naruto). Furthermore, if this subject is crucial to understanding the series (with which I disagree, being a Naruto fan myself), then you're really arguing for "merge", right? Subdolous 00:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It also doesn't mean it should be used as a hammer. I'm not saying merge, because it's a separate topic which cannot be feasibly fit onto another page. I'll admit that some of it could be merged. In fact, I'd go so far to say that a "Sharingan" article would be a better tact altogether. However, the larger entires are redundant amongst several characters, and an integral part of understanding those characters. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know about that. That fails WP:PLOT, which is in fact policy.Subdolous 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted." Similar concept here. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does not fail WP:PLOT mainly because it is not a plot summary, but a summary of abilities. If I were to say that I could fly, that would be a statement pertaining to my ability, not my life story. DISCLAIMER: ITACHIUCHIHAARTICLEFORTHEWIN IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO FLY WITHOUT AN AIRPLANE!!! ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 00:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, because it's an element of the plot. It's not real (Sorry). Someguy0830's entire argument for the majority of this AFD has been that it's crucial to understanding of the plot ("important plot device" according to him), which means it must pass WP:PLOT, and it fails. "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context" according to WP:PLOT. Naruto may have real-world context, but Kekkei Genkais do not. Subdolous 01:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't get is why we're so worked up about this. If it fails to meet WP:PLOT, then we just have to find a way to make it pass. And don't give me any of this stuff about things that are impossible. Does finding notable evidence for kekkei genkais defy the laws of physics? No. Therefore we can fix this article to make it notable if we work hard enough. It's not like we are trying to reverse time or something. It doesnt kate rocket science to do this. All it takes is for us to agree to keep the article, and then do something to improve it according to WP:PLOT and WP:FICT. Cool? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Sasuke9031 03:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as mentioned before, unfortunately notability and real-world context can't be "fixed", at least not from Wikipedia. If you can get reliable secondary sources to cover Kekkei Genkai, maybe get the New York Times to run an investigative piece called "Kekkei Genkai: The New Wave of Ficticious Superhuman Ninja Abilities from Japan" or something similar, it would pass both. Until you succeed in that endeavor, though, it's still at the same faliure status with respect to the policy and guideline mentioned before: WP:N and WP:PLOT. Subdolous 03:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said before don't give me that. You seem to be under the impression that fixing the article to try to make it more notable by going to google and actually LOOKING for notable information on kekkei genkai defies the laws of physics as we know it. It doesn't. There's got to be something in the 50,100 results on google that isn't just fancruft. Currently I am scouring google looking for said sources to add to the article. I'll stay up all night if I have to. I just want to help wikipedia by saving the article, just as was done to the Akatsuki page before. It worked there, so by gosh it will work here. If we delete this page, we will essentially be doing to WP what Hidan did to Asuma. We will delete one page for ourselves that will have repercussions throuout WP. Sasuke9031 04:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another point to bring up is that I was going over the article ant somewhere along the line I came up with some template about this article being B-class on the assessment scale. Now what that means in accordance to this discussion, to be honest, I have no clue, but I thought it was worth mentioning. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 23:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A perfectly-written article on a non-notable subject is still subject to deletion. Subdolous 23:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You see folks, he can be reasonable. But please refrain from accusations and simply help us improve the article instead of cluttering up wikipedia to the point where it's unreadable. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 23:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and my propeosd new name is for ease of access, seeing as how it's my standard username on sites like YouTube, fanfiction.net, etc... ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also like to point out, that at this moment, there are no secondary sources because we simply haven't looked for said sources. Saying it doesn't because we haven't looked(or at least what you are implying, the subject simply doesn't have any) isn't at all helping. Another thing I want to point is to not say anyone is bais. Cause us in the Keep Camp could say you are bais against Naruto, but thats all Bad Faith.--TheUltimate3 23:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of how notable this may be in-universe, there are still no reliable secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 02:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ok fine. there isn't much more than fancruft results and going through google is tedious. I guess i'll hae to find my info somewhere else, so I'm switching form keep to delete on guidlines that there is no notable sources. Besides, there's always the Narutopedia, which has individual articles on dojutsu, (maybe excepting Rin'negan.) Sasuke9031 05:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and thanks to Someguy for striking out my changed vote. Someguy how do you do that? Sasuke9031 05:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<s>Like so.</s> — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sasuke9031 05:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An idea I have, that its just an opinion and nobody have to agree is adding the important parts of the kekkei genkai to recurring jutsu, for example we mat combine byakugan with gentle fist, this is just an idea. Tintor2 10:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how that would help satisfy WP:FICT and WP:PLOT, but if you send me your reasoning on my talk page and I agree with you then by all means, be bold. Sasuke9031 15:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the middle of an AfD. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 15:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then. We wait to the end of the AfD. Sasuke9031 16:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a moot point by then. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 16:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but my friend. You forget MS Word. It's very easy to save the article, then when it gets deleted, simply take the irrelevant stuff out, and put it in the Jutsu section. Ah, how I love PC's. Sasuke9031 22:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already archived. Got a the complete most recent one as a Subpage, to be used if the main article gets deleted, and the Naruto Wiki HAD one from way back. Diced it up good though...--TheUltimate3 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved then. Now all we need to do is wait for an admin to delete the article and TheUltimate3 can do whatever he needs to do. Good job man. Sasuke9031 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is though I don't WANT to do anything, I think the article should stay, so we don't have to clutter whereever else these things would be forced to go.--TheUltimate3 01:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you will read up, you will see that I had the same position. The thing is that even though I tried to find a way to save the article, there was just way too many fan sites on google to sort out and they only give you 20 results at a time. I still want the article to stay but the fact of the matter is that time is against us and even IF we were to find something in the myriad of results on google that is notable, there is no guarantee that this article will remain long enough to see the information added, so I think that we can't fight the inevitable. I've also been accused of being a sockpuppet because I was bold enough to respond to this discussion on the nominator's talk page, so forgive me for wanting to see this resolved as peacefully as possible, but I'm tired of the slander directed at me by people. Sasuke9031 02:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. time is definently againts us and that sucks. I THINK, it may be possible to remake the article when we actually find some reliable sources...--TheUltimate3 11:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable concept with no secondary sources. Fails WP:FICT. Axem Titanium 20:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a reader it was nice to find Wikipedia giving me some info on the subject. FWIW, I am not used to classify my online activities into notable and non-notable. --Argav ۞ 21:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argav, it seems that you are missing the point here. I don't want to see the article go any more than you do, but we can't just overlook the fact that non-notable information has no place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not just a jumble of useless information. There are other places for that. Have you ever tried Narutopedia? I recommend that wiki if you want more in-depth knowledge of Naruto. Sasuke9031 23:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sources to provide real world context or establish notability. Jay32183 00:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The very large number of ghits indicates it gets talked about a lot (and so is notable in the non-technical sense), which means it is likely that reliable secondary sources likely exist (to establish that it's notable in the technical sense). Tag it for cleanup and give the editors who know the subject the chance to find the references FIRST, then bring it back for AfD after a suitable time. (As an aside, the number of ghits suggests that there are those who don't come across the term and would want to be able to look it up, but WP:USEFUL is a depreciated argument.) —Quasirandom 18:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A large number of ghits is actually meaningless, especially when not one of those reveals reliable secondary sources. "I found lots of unreliable sources so there must be reliable sources somewhere" is not a sound argument. There's no connection between the existence of reliable sources and the existence of unreliable sources. Jay32183 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not completely meaningless -- it means there is interest in the subject and a decent chance of reliable secondary sources that can estabilish notability. Someone needs the chance to sift through possible sources for reliability. Tag it for cleanup to give the editors that chance. If they fail, THEN delete. Per WP:FICT, delete is the last resort option. —Quasirandom 00:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability is established by significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. We actually need the sources, we can't just assume they exist. Until you actually find a source, your argument that the article can be sourced beyond plot does not mean anything. Clean up tags are neither magical nor time sensitive. Adding a clean up tag doesn't guarantee there will be improvement and should only be used when the problems only require effort to fix. No amount of effort will make unreliable sources reliable, no matter how many people are interested in the subject. Please read WP:INTERESTING and WP:GHITS. Jay32183 01:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence of notability to justify this plot summary. --Gavin Collins 08:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is this Entire article a plot summary? After looking the article over, the only area with unneccesary plot is the Mokuton section.Lastbetrayal 20:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is plot summary in that all of the information is taken directly from the story. There's no real world information from reliable sources other than the manga and the anime. Jay32183 20:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: These come under Jutsu (Naruto). Just merge it there. σмgн gσмg 11:54, 8 November 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.