Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muten Roshi (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. It should be pointed out the prior AFD discussion was closed as no consensus, and a month is not unreasonable for a follow up AFD in that situation. However, even discounting those arguments to keep as this AFD was "too soon" after the first, the consensus is still to keep the article. Neil ☎ 13:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muten Roshi

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Muten Roshi Articles for deletion/Muten Roshi (2nd nomination)
Muten Roshi (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#Muten Roshi. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 04:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the more notable anime characters and very notable in Dragon Ball (although less so in Dragon Ball Z). Rename to his official English name of Master Roshi though. For far too long the members of the DBZ Wikiproject have thought that they are allowed to ignore policies and guidelines and use the English translation of characters names rather than their actual English name (as required). It's the reason I stopped editing Dragon Ball related articles. TJ Spyke 05:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The character definitely qualifies for notability, and the problems in the article are not so great that they can't be corrected without starting over. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 06:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The real problem is that Muten Roshi has no real life sources, and this article will continue to remain like that since there are none whatsoever. Who will take the time to place any references to the article? Obviously, no one cares. Also, WP:WPDB does not ignore any guidelines or policies, here they are right here. 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) 15:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • So, you don't ignore policies and guidelines because you followed unofficial policies and guidelines that cannot be enforced ever? Well, if you can create such a guideline, I make one that says the opposite of your naming conventions. Oops, already made - it's called the official naming conventions guideline. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Correction - it appears that your guidelines and policies are official. However, you are arbitrarily enforcing certain policies and ignoring others. Why would there be a guideline that says we should use the English name, if the MoSJP was intended for this? There is a proper English name for Muten Roshi, it's Master Roshi. The MoSJP does not cover fictional characters in the slightest. Would you also support using direct translations of video games developed by Japanese developers? On multiple occasions, the idea that fictional subjects are covered by MoSJP has been considered bunk. The only fictional subjects that apply are those that do not have proper English names, and this is definitely not one of those subjects. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Notability is rightly undisputed; sourcing issues are trivial - would Lord Sesshomaru have the article's editors give specfic episode references? <ref>Episode 47, 13:47</ref>... And I don't know that a mere lack of out of universe perspective merits what would amount to deletion of the lion's share of the article. A merge isn't a good idea either for an entirely other reason; Master Roshi figures in how many disparate parts of the DB franchise? etc. --Gwern (contribs) 16:05 24 October 2007 (GMT)
  • Strong Keep Per above comment by Gwern. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per pretty much all of the arguments provided. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sppedy Keep as a snowball. AfD is not the venue for article cleanup or to initiate a merger discussion. --Farix (Talk) 11:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as it has nothing good going for it; there are no primary sources to support the article's veracity, no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. What it has got is not good: the article has a long "Background" section written from an in-universe perspective that is just a plot summary. There is no real evidence that this article should be kept.--Gavin Collins 13:08, 26 October 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 15:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Didn't we already go through this? The last very recent AFD was keep, and there has to be secondary sources on Master Roshi, he is a central character to a very popular anime. Viperix 21:06, 27 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) 21:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. How is it original research? Original research is something with no sources. The article says that it is derived from anime/manga. Sure it doesn't have every seperate comment individually referenced, but that is not required under WP:VERIFY--Marhawkman 00:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep- for same reasons as last time, bad faith nomination so soon, when the last vote was not "no consensus" by a firm keep based on the voting outcomes and reasoning.JJJ999 01:09, 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)
  • Delete No reliable sources beyond the plot itself, fails WP:FICT, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Non-plot being derived from plot is original research. Jay32183 20:26, 1 November 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.