Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulma (2nd nomination)

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. - Bobet 13:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bulma

Bulma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

It's been more than a month and none have taken the time to improve the article. It remains unreferenced, and is filled with so much original research. Now I'm aware of the character's notability and all, but there isn't any real world information that can be attributed here since the character lacks real-world perspective. Merge to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball#Bulma. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't have time right now to do a quick re-write, but I can do one later. I think it would probably be worth keeping a seperate article on Bulma as she is an important character in DBZ. Red Fiona 13:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I recognize her fictional importance but there isn't much or any

out-of-universe data. The page should actually be deleted per violating WP:V and WP:OR, but I say a merger would be best to save the data. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per my comments on Master Roshi. (If you find this annoying, consider I at least didn't cut-and-paste my nomination and arguments.) --Gwern (contribs) 16:10 24 October 2007 (GMT)
• Keep per my comments in previous discussion, which was held less than a month ago. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Duane543 16:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep AfD is not the venue for article cleanup or merger discussions. --Farix (Talk) 11:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there are no primary sources which suggests this is WP:OR, nor are there reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The "Background" section is written from an in-universe perspective that reads like a plot summary. This article is fancruft dressed up to look like an encyclopedic entry. --Gavin Collins 13:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't buy your arguments. (1) The Primary sources are the DBZ films, video games, and millions of other merchandise, per WP:OR: "Examples of primary sources include ... photographs; ... and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." (2) Fancruft isn't a valid argument per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (3) In-universe style can be cleaned up. (4) Secondary sources exist, but it takes time to find said sources. With a quick news search you can find over 1,100 news entries alone, a quick google search provides over 12,300,000. Surely this speaks to real world notability and the existence of secondary sources. I don't have time to go through all of the news articles and see which ones are reliable, but with 1,100 news articles some are going to be reliable. Here are a few promising ones: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/01/16/DD84943.DTL http://www.dragonballz.com/index.cfm?page=characters&type=&id=93 (notice Bulma one of very few characters trade marked) http://www.absoluteanime.com/dragon_ball/bulma.htm http://www.lycos.com/info/bulma.html Viperix 10:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep as blatantly premature - one month isn't at all long in the circumstances. To the best of my knowledgte, AfDs a month apart are considered unacceptably close together. --Kizor 15:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment clean-up tags should be allowed time to work and AFD is not a process to force clean-up in a "timely" manner. However, the article has existed without references for almost a year!- Ukulele 20:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A year's not much. Just some time ago I was cleaning up and referencing an article that had needed them for over one and a half, and longer periods aren't implausible. --Kizor 14:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Didn't we already go through this? Per my comments on the last very recent AFD. Viperix 21:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I say. Bulma is an important character who warrants her own article. K00bine 05:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No comments --SkyWalker 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment doesn't matter how many keeps this page gets. Per WP:VERIFY policy, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I also agree with Sesshomaru on WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:WAF and WP:NN as well as all of the policies I have in mind. My vote is neutral. Greg Jones II 22:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep- another bad faith nomination in an indencent amount of time (given it was such a firm rejection last time anyway, if there was genuine ambivalence I could agree). Same reasons as last time. Someone senior needs to have a word to this guy about his AfD's.JJJ999 01:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to add that LS's arguments, aside from being bizarre, are ridiculously aggressive and basically wrong. The argument about sources is completely irrelevant, it would be like arguing that an article on President Bush should go because it lacked sources... since it requires almost zero effort to find real world notablility on a single google search, it is baffling that he makes these assertions. the answer is simply to add sources, not delete the article. I am offended that the previous AfD's were closed as no consensus, there was a clear consensus, in both reasoning and votesJJJ999 09:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep I am not friend of anime or manga and even me have heard of Bulma --Zache 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, even non-fans know of the importance Bulma's eventual relationship with Vegeta brings to the future developments of both DBZ and it's spin-off Dragonball GTDr. R.K.Z 18:24 31st October 2007

]] 14:40, 31 October 2007 (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.