Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheFarix (talk | contribs) at 12:54, 16 July 2006 (+new discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Japan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Japan|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Japan. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

See also: Asia-related deletions.

Japan

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. Grandmasterka 06:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Moe

Non-notable doujin (which is a nice way of saying unlicensed fanfic, most of the time) game. Google has nothing relevant, Whatlinkshere doesn't seem to indicate that it's important in any way, and there are no sources besides the game's official site (which is in Japanese). This was prodded, but the prod was removed without comment, which isn't helpful at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete, 110 unique Ghits[1], which may owe more to the related concept of Moé. *shudder* Doesn't strike me as notable per proposed WP:SOFTWARE, and doesn't appear to satisfy any generic notability tests, either. -- H·G (words/works) 07:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; isn't the reason that there is nothing relevant on Google or other pages all the more of an indication that it is beneficial for such an article to exist? Many people use Wikipedia as well as Google for searching sources. It is particularly the fact that there was minimal information on the net that struck the idea that creating such a page might be helpful to people seeking information on the game. HOWEVER! If it is precisely the lack of information on the page that has led to the suggestion of deletion, please say so, and remedies can be made. If there are other reasons, please also say so; because, it is still quite confusing as to why submitting information on a game (not a detailed guide, but just one to introduce it) that doesn't have a lot of information on the rest of the net is a reason for deletion. If there exists an article on a subject that would be otherwise hard to find on Google, it might be better to keep it. Thank you. --FrostShaman 09:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no indication that there are any reliable sources that have ever commented on this game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are clear indications that this game is special in its own way. For one matter, as a Doujin game, it features not 1 on 1 combat, but 2 on 2, making it a more diverse form of multipler gameplay. Secondly, the terrain of the stages varies. In other words, there are raised platforms and whatnot, resembling those found in games such as the SSB series. Both of these factors are elements that many Doujin Fighting Games lack, making this one of the few that feature both. The definition of importance or the presence of reliable sources doesn't seem concrete, since, as mentioned, this game is in fact notable for bringing the elements of 4 players and a variant terrain into a Doujin game, and does the main site not count as a "reliable" site? Therefore, I still argue that this page should be kept. Thank you once again for your comments. --FrostShaman
        • The main site is a primary source. There are no secondary sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Under the page Verifiability, it is not mentioned that any second source are needed so long as there is a site from which information is drawn from. It just so happens that the site is in Japanese, and, in accordance with deletion policies, sites of foreign languages or sites with verifiability problems are not absolute reasons for deletion/deletion may not be needed. It is because the game has little publicity that there are few sites pertaining to the information, and the very source of this information is the main site. So, unless it is doubted whether the main site provides information that contradicts what is written in this page, there should be no reason to doubt this verifiability. If anything else, I think the page should be keep, and, at the least, modified to a stub. --Caskyl
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 12:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not to have notability in any areas I can think of. --Charlesknight 13:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, the Notability section lists out specific points of notability, as it is true that few Fighing games, let alone Doujin games, have combinations of all these aspects. --Caskyl
  • Delete - Wikipedia articles are not created b/c they might be beneficial to the subject of the article. Also, it is not enough that subject is special in any way. Also, Wikipedia does not list every Doujin game there is. Shinhan 19:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see it mentioned anywhere that Wikipedia should list out and talk about all Doujin games. It only seems to be hinted that this page is potentially helpful to those who seek information on the game, and, if I recall correctly, articles on Wikipedia should not be bound by restraints as long as it doesn't violate any rules or regulations. And here, it doesn't seem like any of the regulations are seriously violated. --Caskyl
      • I wish it were not so, but notability guidelines are here to stay, and this game is definitelly not notable. Find some other way to promote your game and come back here once you get enough media attention to merit a wikipedia article. Shinhan 22:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article may be useful to someone, harmless, and not violate rules "seriously" but it's still nn. Tychocat 14:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to some features not enjoyed by many more "notable" fighting games (i.e. the Soul Calibur series), it also features a number of characters from popular Japanese products which most certainly *are notable. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. 24.161.191.234 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This anons edits are only to this AFD. Shinhan 22:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem is, it seems to be unlicensed fanwork based on those characters, and there's so much of that that a line has to be drawn. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, however, one must take into account the bizarrely unique methodology that goes around in the world of doujinshi. It's a veritable phenomenon, which I assume stems from the fact that Japanese copyright laws either (A) allow for such things vs. more contemporary Western laws, or (B) nobody bothers to enforce them if they do. Just because we do not understand it, or do not think it is useful, doesn't mean it's worth chucking out a window. Furthermore, you have to admit, it's a well-written article; that in and of itself is with at least a small margin of error on the side of "keep" in the Wikipedia of today. 24.161.191.234 18:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ack, sorry for not putting this in above. Anyway, for those of us who are not satisfied with what we find on Google, mayhaps it is worth a search in the game's native Japanese? I went ahead and did it for you, have a look. 24.161.191.234 18:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hate to delete things people spend a lot of time on, but can't make a case for keep. Spent 20 mins google searching and couldn't even turn up a blog or forum post. - Wickning1 14:53, 18 July 2006 (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. I am discounting the delete and merge votes, which are illegal. As for the straight merge minority, they fail to make a case as to WP:NOT. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various Pokémon glitch articles

Extremely detailed cruft about a bunch of "Pokémon" that are just placeholders in the game code, accessible only with a cheat device or a short circuit (really). There's nothing in this article that could possibly be sourced anywhere (the only source is a particularly bad Bulbapedia article), and I can't imagine how this could possibly be encyclopedic. Pokémon is notable, but every single glitch associated with it ever is not.

I came across these while working on merging the wholly crufty and unsourced glitch articles into Pokémon glitches, which is not included in this AFD. Suggesting that this article be merged there, however, isn't very helpful unless someone can also offer a reliable source with which to verify the claims in this article. (The sourced or sourcable ones went into that merged article.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple more wholly unsourced glitch articles, all laden with how-to information. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:00, 15 July 2006 (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. Mailer Diablo 10:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto geography

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft and unencyclopedic. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 07:57, 15 July 2006 (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 10:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of weapons in Naruto

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft and unencyclopedic. The source given lists almost exactly the same information, so the link can be added to the Naruto article if necessary hoopydinkConas tá tú? 07:36, 15 July 2006 (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 Eluchil404 01:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Orange Islands Gym Leaders

article itself states that they only exist in one media, Pokecruft without encyclopedic value -- nae'blis (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2006 (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 Eluchil404 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! anime, manga or movie only characters

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft/gamecruft and unencyclopedic. This article is unsourced and full of original research . The list is also rendundant, as there is already a category for Yu-Gi-Oh! characters hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article is linked from the main Yugioh article, it's not really meant to be found on its own. The contributor decided to break up the character list like this because there are too many for 'list of Yugioh characters'. - Wickning1 05:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this list is the best place for these characters Yuckfoo 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep ,this article is a very useful resource I have come to time and time again. It not only provides one of the best lists out there but has recently had me look at it to solve out a delema I had over one of the characters listed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.154.200 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
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 redirect to Yohji Yamamoto. Mangojuicetalk 04:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y-3

Mykeblack (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) objected to the original speedy deletion request that was filed when the article was a few sentences longer. I still don't think a blurb on a line of designer clothing that belongs in a catalogue is remotely close to being notable in an encyclopedic sense. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:58, 14 July 2006 (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 a consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 15:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon by species

Wholly unencyclopedic trivia. We already have List of Pokémon by name (as well as several other lists at List of Pokémon, so we really don't need the "species" (which is never mentioned outside the info screen in the games) in list form. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:59, 14 July 2006 (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. If anyone wants the content for another wiki, drop me a note - I'll undelete the material and send it to you. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Character archetypes in the Fire Emblem series

All uncited research. Not verifiable by any stretch of the imagination. Directly from the talk page of the article: "The research originated from GameFAQs" - hardly an encylopedic source. Also nominating Jeigan (archetype), which is the same thing but a specific case. Wickethewok 04:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response - Please read WP:V for more info on verifiability. Note that anyone can submit any information to GameFAQs, which means we can't use it as a source. Also, its preferential that you create a Wikipedia account if you wish to participate on AFD - it makes it easier to keep track of who says what. Wickethewok 05:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The following is a quote from Jimbo Himself on 22 April in the computer and video games bookshelf talk page: " am unaware of any elementary school, high school, or college courses which require computer game walkthroughts as a text. Therefore, these all really MUST be deleted. They are a violation of the educational mission charter of the Wikimedia Foundation! Take your time, find a new home, but this stuff really has to go." Ace of Sevens 20:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to FEWiki.net. That is the best thing to do with this. It would be the final decision. Here is a quote from FEWiki: "A major factor in the decision to start the FEWiki is the increasing amount of Fire Emblem content becoming available on Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is supposed to provide detailed information about almost anything, but the amount of non-encylopedic Fire Emblem content there was getting beyond a joke. And thus it was decided to create this wiki dedicated to Fire Emblem, to allow that sort of content and more." Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 01:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Note that there's nothing stopping you from transwikiing it at any time; you don't have to wait for the AFD to close to stick a copy on the game wiki. Proto::type 08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many people in the Fire Emblem fandom agree that most of the "archetypes" listed are not really true archetypes. Therefore, not only is it debatable whether it's encyclopedic, but its reliability concerning its subject is questionable. --Kzer-za 02:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much of the content is contentious or outright fabricated. --144.137.32.87 02:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jeigan (archetype). "Jeigan" is very much a widely accepted and used term among the Fire Emblem fan base, and while its specifics are debated, the core of its definition is agreed upon. The Jeigan article does at the very least an adequate job of making clear what is accepted by and large universally from what is debated over. However, Character archetypes in the Fire Emblem series is full of partial contradictions to its own wording and defines several terms in a way many would very openly disagree with. It further gives definition to terms effectively never used by even the niche group of the public which it should supposedly be pertinent to, and as such, should definitely be deleted. RunissKnight 22:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nabarl and Oguma sections. Like "Jeigan", "Nabarl" and "Oguma" are also widely accepted and used term among Fire Emblem fans. Nabarl and Oguma are analogous to Swordmaster and Hero. The Nabarl and Oguma sections of the article are long enough to be separate articles. They were originally separate articles. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 01:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused what your opinion is, Zanarukando. First you say you object to deletion, then you say "Make Encyclopedic" (whatever that means), and now you say you want to keep some specific part of it. What exactly is your vote/recommendation? Wickethewok 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds consistant to me. They are endorsing a keep with a rewrite to make this fit Wikipedia's goals better (ie remove fancruft). Ace of Sevens 19:16, 18 July 2006 (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 MERGE to Sailor Crystal. TigerShark 11:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star seed

delisted this from WP:CSD-- — xaosflux Talk 03:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the Sailor Moon Template is a characters template. I tried, in the past, to add non-character articles to it, but I was reverted. We really should expand it to become a series template and further condense the characters into like articles. --Kunzite 12:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the Sailor Moon wiki has already created an entry. It's common info among fans of the show. --Kunzite 18:21, 21 July 2006 (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 08:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon by color

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft and unencyclopedic. The article is also unsourced and can be construed as original research hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:58, 14 July 2006 (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. Mailer Diablo 09:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese Prime Ministers by longevity

Just an unsourced and basically abandoned list. Buckner 1986 05:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 69.159.15.53 has a point. Don't we all need to look deep into our hearts and come to terms with the fact that we're all horrible racists who have a disdain for human life? At first I was just voting "delete" because this list is ridiculous and useless, but then I realized it was just my own prejudices and hatred. Thank you, 69.159.15.53 AdamBiswanger1 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about someone writing a paper on the history of Japanese Prime Ministers, and could include data on who lived to be the oldest? I know people compile statistics on US Presidents like that - who's still alive, who died early, who lived to be an old fart, etc. I can't substantiate this, but I know people study the effects of holding high-stress jobs on one's health. People that hold those offices tend to die younger. Wouldn't an article like this be of use to a person like that? --Aguerriero (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone actually carried out a study like that of US presidents, the sample size would be so small as to make the study invalid. Even assuming the researcher were to include all 43 presidents, its still using only a sample of 43 to make claims about a very large group of people (people with high stress jobs, which numbers in the millions), and the researcher still have to deal with all the very wide historical differences in healthcare, diet, environment, operational role etc etc etc not to mention individual genetics and so on. The people you know who are compiling these statistics are compiling trivia. About the only practical use I can think of for this kind of information is if it were for a pub quiz or perhaps some kind of number puzzle, both of which are themselves trivial pursuits. Bwithh 22:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is www.pray4ray.com, but that's going out the window. AdamBiswanger1 01:35, 14 July 2006 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animextreme

I am listing Animextreme as an article for deletion under Wikipedia's Deletion policy. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Please read: Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you disagree with my listing please do not take offense. You may still change the orginial page and you may comment here. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 July 2006 (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. Mailer Diablo 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JAIST

Promotional for private school in Japan (material taken off the school's website which is linked to page bottom.) KarenAnn 12:26, 12 July 2006 (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. Jaranda wat's sup 00:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recap episode (Air episode)

Delete, While there is still some debate on this TV show, whether or not to keep individual episode articles, I would think this one could safely be deleted. It's a recap episode with no new animation/footage/etc. In other words, there's nothing more to say about it, other than it was a recap episode, which can easily be done on List of Air episodes. Ned Scott 06:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I could understand some keep votes here, but honestly, there are 13 words in this article (excluding the table), it does really satisfy my need for information. tmopkisn tlka 06:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am slowly improving the air episode articles. Thats the unfinished version. --Cat out 10:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the air episode series is under developement. I haven't had the time to complete the air episode series. This afd nomination should be held after I write that article. --Cat out 10:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Breeze (Air episode). That will be the length of this episode (although possibly more). when I am done with it. I am currently on vacation with no access to Air DVDs of mine.
    • Air has a very complex story, the recap episode will allow me to summarise the important points of the entier plot and explain inter-episode referances, how does one seemingly insignificant event in a previous episode affect the rest significantly. Stuff like:
      • why is that 'stupid' crow finding yukitos puppet have any significance?
      • what is the "magical feather" and how does relate to Kano, Michiru and Kanna?
      • Why does Misuzu's sudden crying in Wing has any significance? (reasons are revealed much later as this is a result of a 1000 year curse)
    --Cat out 10:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't those details go on Air (TV series)? This is an article about a recap episode, not a recap article. -- Ned Scott 10:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Air TV series should be mostly talking about the production of the show etc. At least thats what I had in mind. the plot is too complex and long to fit in Air (TV) and leave room for production related suff. Excel Saga has almost no referance to the plot for instance (and its a good article). Articles should be kept at sizes smaller than 32kb if possible as there are unfortunute people stuck with 56k throughout the planet. Excel without a plot is 38 kilobytes. --Cat out 10:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but I disagree. One, I disagree with your logic of article structure, and two, I disagree with Air having a complex plot. It was a tear-jerker, sure, but not hard to understand. But that's besides the point. Using a an article about a recap episode to talk about over-all plot elements is quite inappropriate. If it is too big for the main article then something like Plot Summary of Air should be made, like how is done with Eureka Seven and Plot Summary of Eureka Seven (anime). In fact, I'd favor that type of format over individual episode articles, or maybe even merging articles that share the same sub-plot arc, like eps 2,3,4 and then 5,6 and such. Again, I'm getting off topic, but you get my point about this article. Also, some of what you suggested sounds like WP:OR. -- Ned Scott 11:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plot Summary of Air, recap episode no real diference. A recap episode is a plot summary by definition. There is no original research issues when relating Misuzus condition to Kanna, is there? Excel has a basic plot. The only "real" plot is a world domination attempt, but no serious effort is made to that end throughout the series. Air on the other hand has a complex plot. All episodes are related to a degree. Even the Kano and Minagi arcs that kinda dont fit in like the rest (as they are supposed to be seperate endings for the game I believe) actualy relate to Kanna. There is a lot of referances back and forth which in my view should be covered (and the recap episode does a decent job covering this) --Cat out 11:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no solid plan on how to write the recap article. I wasn't geneticaly engineered with the recap episode engraved to my genes. I first have to rewatch it. If you have suggestions in improving the recap episode, feel free to do so in the articles talk page. If after the improvement drive there is a posibily to merge the article or move it elsewhere, that posibility can be investigated then. This nom is premature. --Cat out 11:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the nomination stands. A recap episode does summarize the plot, but an article about a recap episode is not about the plot, it's about the episode. -- Ned Scott 11:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination should be made after the articles improvement. The recap episode covers the most important issues. The episode is nothing but a plot summary as you point out and an article about such an episode by definition is a summary of the plot... --Cat out 11:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have shorther articles about movies that will hit the theaters in several years as we do not know when the production will be complete. Star Trek XI is one such example. It is not deleted because it has a real potential to grow even though it only has rumors atm.. --Cat out 11:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, It's kinda a gray area, as a page about an episode shoudl be about the episode, and a recap episode recaps the series to date, but if you're just going to turn it into a plot summary page, it should go into the main series page. Also, if you want to prove that the article has value, you better hurry up and write it. --PresN 21:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am exploring many possibilities since the deletion rationale is that recap episode itself isnt worthy of an article. I disagree with that assesment but am open to suggestions. I have no solid agenda atm on how precisely ı will do the recap episode. --Cat out 09:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 22:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per concensus. Editors on wikipedia should generally be given time to flesh out articles that they write. "Generally" is the key. Some types of articles which have tendencies to be trivial in nature (i.e. television episodes) should be developed in a way that conforms to concensus guidelines and policies created for those subject areas. The general concensus for these has been: 1) Create the article for the main series. 2) When and if section of that article overwhelms the main article, that section should be split into a new article and summarize section on main page. 3) When and if individual entities of a section in the secondary page become too large, split into a third article. I know the editor who created the article disagrees with these guidlines and policies. However, because those guidelines were based on concensus decisions and I find them to be very reasonable and quite useful to quality control at the project... my suggestion is to delete. Most of the current air episode articles are this type of one sentence article. Even the example of a "completed" episode page is very short and could easily merged into the list of air episodes. --Kunzite 01:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not disagree with guidelines/policies (just merely ignoring them as per "ignore all rules policy"), and I do not believe you know me (nor would that be relevant). Multiply the size of Breeze with 15 (we have 15 epidoes) and your number will easily exeed 32kb warranting this kind of seperation. I need to be given time to write the articles. People had been complaining ever since I created the stup pages which I intend to expand. See: Talk:Town (Air episode) --Cat out 08:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your math is wrong. The Breeze episode is 1.8kb. There are 15 Episodes. That makes 27kb, not 32.
Secondly, the size argument is invalid. WP:SIZE states that the strict 32kb rule may be ignored for such things as lists. Thus, if that is your sole reason for creating seperate articles, I will happily go on a merging binge this weekend, just for you. Even if you choose to ignore another concensus policy, there are other ways to create lists of episodes with these extradionarily short plot summaries on wikipedia. The list could be divided into episodes arcs, or in half, or thirds. I find episode lists that concatenated on one page far easier to read, edit, keep track of vandalism, and more succinct than articles spread over a myriad of pages.
You stated that the above referenced episode as an example of an expanded article. If 1.8kb (with some chunky template code) is the intended size of this set of articles, then I say they all need to be merged no matter how much time you're given to expand.
Finally, per the comment of my talk page, I am not making personal comments about you, I am making comments about the quality of your work of wikipedia. I feel that a poor choice was made in creating this and its sibling articles when a handful of articles would suffice. --Kunzite 02:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How can a recap episode have any encyclopedic value? It adds nothing to the anime itself, let alone here. There was no new scenes, except the "next episode" preview (which is non-nontable), just a mash up of scenes from the series, and that offers no new interpretation or suggestions of anything that hasn't been brought up from the series. If there is any, then it's original research. _dk 09:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting something from the episode is not original research. How can any episode article not have encyclopedic value? Recap episode made many inter episode referances which were not all that clear otherwise for instance. --Cat out 09:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you just quote it, then it's just a plot summary (and thus does not deserve its own article). If you add your own explanation on how the sequencing of the scenes makes the theme clear, then it's original research. _dk 09:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for bothering to respond to you. --Cat out 16:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay man. Have a cup of tea. _dk 05:32, 15 July 2006 (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 Merge all to Characters in Bleach series. I've only tagged the individual pages for the merge, since the target page would get too bloated with simply cut and pasting and I have no idea what information is actually useful. The editors with an interest in the articles in question are encouraged to sort it out. - Bobet 09:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-Roy, Luppi (Bleach), Edorad Leones, Il Forte Grantz, Shawlong Qufang, Wanderweiss

Nominating all these articles - although they all seem to have a decent amount of content, it's mostly bloated and isn't very meaningful. The articles in question are about non-notable characters in the manga and anime series Bleach. Wanderweiss and Luppi (Bleach) aren't even properly named according to the naming conventions. These characters are non-notable because they basically appear for a handful of chapters (or pages, in D-Roy's case), and die. They have few (if any) distinct personality traits, and exist mainly for the sake of fighting the series' protagonists. Although I have personally improved D-Roy, Edorad Leones, Ilforte Grantz and Shawlong Qufand (see edit histories), I now feel that the effort was not needed and that these articles have no place on Wikipedia. All the valuable information in them can be condensed and merged into Characters in Bleach series. See also: Talk:Bleach (manga)#Character articles (several users agreed with the deletion proposal) -- Ynhockey (Talk) 06:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all to Hollow (Bleach). They, unlike the main cast, are all here to presumably get killed off by the main cast. Having articles for each of them doesn't work. Make an in-depth Hollow article for all of them. User:Robinson0201
MERGE Let's just merge all Bleach chars to List of Bleach characters. Of course we should summarize and link the longer, more notable, main character articles. That way we can give poke the boot and use the real standard for fictional characters: WP:FICTION --Kunzite 23:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You mean Characters in Bleach series? We did that, but the article got to be ridiculously large to the extent it was effectively impossible to edit at one point. Kubo Tite prefers to introduce his characters by the dozen.--tjstrf 23:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such a waste of a good opportunity.. Why in heaven's name are theme songs listed where summaries should be? The characters can all be merged into groups as suggested several times below. --Kunzite 01:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's quite funny. I'd never noticed how out of place the theme songs looked there. The summaries were pulled due to article length concerns. --tjstrf 01:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If merge, merge by categories I do admit some characters has too little backstory and information that they may not really require a separate article, but even if this article is to be merged, merge it into something like the "Hollow" article, since the Espada are hollows anyway. Of course, such merging may provoke cries of image removals, but on the other hand, keeping the images may cause the article to grow too big. That is all I'll say. 155.69.5.236Wakipudeo155.69.5.236
Comment: I think they don't have enough backstory and unique information to stand alone, but I don't think they should be merged into already large articles like the Characters in Bleach or Hollow (Bleach). Perhaps all these pages should be merged into new seperate compiliation page? EikaKou
Reply Lists of Bleach Characters by Race might be the most sensible option if we were to divide them, since the current system within the Bleach Character article is by location of residence, which doesn't make much sense imo. However, I'm not sure that image removal is really a concern here. If one of those characters were to be in a flashback, or have survived somehow, or otherwise gain notability within the series, then I don't think there's really a shortage of scanned manga pages with the text shopped out, and they could be easily replaced. --tjstrf 23:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think none of these articles should be deleted, especially Wanderweiss, as its very likely he'll become more important later on. He's probably an Espada and is still alive and likely will remain so due to his lack of fighting in the current assault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.50.229 (talk • contribs)
Reply. Anyone going to the Wanderweiss page is almost certainly going to be a reader of the manga. It would be of no interest otherwise. So, ideally, the page should be made useful with the manga's audience in mind. Here is a list of important information on Wanderweiss' page which the average reader might not know off-hand:
  • He was human-sized as a hollow, prior to becoming arrancar. This suggests that he was a Vasto Lorde. This would make him freakishly powerful, and certainly more significant than D-Roy could have hoped to be.
  • And, um...
Merging the article and turning the page into a redirect does not prevent the page's recreation if and when (probably when) we know and care enough about him to warrent it. What we are trying to do is set a precidence. Specifically: If a pages is filled with nothing but useless information, even for the relatively few readers who actually care, then the page should not exist. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Important information on the limited subject should be included in other pages discussing a more general subject. Take the Hollow (Bleach) page for example. Creating a new page for each individual type of hollow would be pointless and actually hurt the core article. – Gunslinger47 21:37, 14 July 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Japan&oldid=64109222"