Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Naruto

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 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future Naruto

Future Naruto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A fanfic term used to describe future events that haven't come to pass in the Naruto manga. The article has no sources to verify its importance, other than the manga itself, and is essentially a neologism. Prod removed by author. Danny Lilithborne 05:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• This article is important. It will give plot summaries about fanfics. It will discuss the expanded universe created by cover pages from the manga. --Count Mall 05:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  There is no place for fanfic on Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 05:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is absolutely, positively NOT fanfiction.net. --Dennisthe2 05:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  ...erm, yeah. --Dennisthe2 05:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Stong Delete I agree enteirly. This is also simply is not notiable enough for inclusion. Short of a well know author becomming involved I see no way it could ever be notiable enough. --67.71.79.225 06:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• It does not, and never will, discuss fanficton. It discusses the canon images of the charcters in the future and what they suggest. I feel this is important because it may give us clues to how the story will end.--Count Mall 06:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  Art drawn by the author doesn't necessarily mean it's canon. The topic of the article will always be speculative and that violates policy. Danny Lilithborne 06:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  It will never be pure speculation. It is a series of possible glimpses into the future world of Naruto. You of all people should know that God works in mysterious way, but such practices are not limited to him. How do you know it isnt canon? Whats truly canon is what the creater considers canon, not what you think. I never intended this page to be a main Naruto page, it was supposed to function as reference. Like later in the manga, if something happens, we can come here and think he totally gave a heads up on this one. I strongly disagree with its deletion--Count Mall 06:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  i have to go, dont you dare delete this without further arguement. --Count Mall 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  There is a clear problem with your latest argument. It you are disccussing possibilities without them being properely sourced it is a viloation of WP:OR and WP:V. You may have the pictures but interpretations or theories reaarding what is happening etc, cannont be addeded wothout violating WP:OR. This means that wikipedia rules will not allow any heads up. Without being able to add theories etc all you will have are a group of pictures and they are of little value on their own.--67.71.79.225 07:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL at it's finest. We'll find out at the end of the series, 'mmkay? --tjstrf talk 06:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete- Not sure why this had to go through AFD. --Squilibob 07:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  There's no real criteria it could be speedied under, otherwise I'd have used it. Danny Lilithborne 07:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This in violation of so many policies it's not even funny. WP:NOT a crystal ball, fan fiction doesn't meet WP:FICTION notability guidelines, it's unverifiable (WP:V), has no reliable sources (WP:RS) and is entirely original research (WP:NOR). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• IT IS NOT FUCKING FANFICTION. I intended it to focuss on a part of the expanded universe of Naruto, but it can be merged with one big naruto expanded universe page. If you think there isnt an expanded universe, theres filler, and these. If you dont agree with this last arguement, go ahead and delete it, and all of you go to Hell along with it. I have nothing more to say. --Count Mall 07:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  Even so, you still have not addressed my points regarding WP:V or WP:OR. I see no way that you would be able to make any article of substance and still follow those policies since almost everything except a basic discription would violate that. Based on your responses that does not appear to be what you want for the article and I don't think that a basic descrption of a few pictures is ebough for an article. --67.71.79.225 07:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  May I point out at this time that you said it gives "plot summaries about fanfic", above? Please be clear: is this (derived of) fanfiction or not? --Dennisthe2 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  Any plot summary of this "topic" is inherently fanfiction as it is made up based on a couple of splash pages made for fans. There's no plot summary and no details behind these images. They're just there for fun. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:SNOWBALL. Despite the author's pleas, this has a snowball's chance in hell of not being deleted. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  I'll second that. There's not even anything worth merging there. --tjstrf talk 08:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both because this article is complete bunk and its creator's attitude makes it clear he doesn't have any substantial reason to keep it. It's just a fanfic. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 10:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It is inherently speculative, violating the WP is not a crystal ball policy. GassyGuy 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - let's make this as painless as possible, shall we? MER-C 12:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since even the article admits that nothing of "future Naruto" has been released besides a couple of random sketches, it's hard to imagine anything besides fanfiction that could be used in this article. Besides, do we really want to set a precedent for possible character/age combinations having articles? "Geriatric Animaniacs", "Arthur Teens", "M*A*S*H Babies", etc etc etc... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  Dude, don't give anyone ideas about "geriatric Animaniacs", Warner Bros. just might pull the series out again. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete AND SALT I think an end to this debate has already been acheived. Also, from the author's comments, I can see him recreating this page as soon as it's deleted, so a salting to prevent recreation may be in order. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 18:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced neologism. Per WP:NEO, articles on neologisms need to have reliable, verifiable sources establishing the circumstances under which a term was coined, not just using the term. The article does have two sources in which apparent future versions of some of the Naruto characters were represented, but no sources regarding the term. At most, those sources should be folded into the discussion of those specific characters. TheronJ 19:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism and highly probable original research magnet. The article in it's current form is about as far as one can go with sourced information, and even it delves into speculative territory. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per all the reasons listed above. This is fanfiction and speculation, neither of which belong on Wikipedia. -- 9muses 19:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JRHorse 03:07, 8 January 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.