Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aku Soku Zan

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 as original research. KrakatoaKatie 23:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aku Soku Zan

I don't get the point of this article. It talks about the concept but provides no sources (other than the cultural references trivia) and no literature that discusses this. It seems to be Wikipedia:Original research. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research, but I don't really think it's notable enough for its own article. Joe routt (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - the content is questionable, and it's too minour to warrant a page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• 'K this is a pretty darned obvious merge per the guidelines of WP:FICT into Saitō Hajime (Rurouni Kenshin). Has not, that I can tell, acheived independent notablity, but does demostrate that the character has, in its way. Most of the first section already is duplication so doesn't need to go, while the cultural references belongs in the Character reception. This was a suimmary style split from the character that was never warrented. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It is a very bad plot summery combined with original research and some trivia thrown in for added measure (I'm guessing so that it wouldn't fail WP:PLOT completely even though it doesn't work). --Farix (Talk) 01:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Fairly unnecessary & described more succinctly on the character's own page. Merge the relevant bits and a-go. Papacha (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, it's not worth merging, it is after all, a phrase. Hiding T 12:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2008 (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.