Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naruto geography (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 No consensus, but merge editorially. xDanielx raises relevant points that are sound in policy. Notability NOT inherited is a guideline usually intended for people, and its application to other broader topics is tenuous. Within the guidelines of WP:FICT, it is possible to consider this article a valid supplement to Naruto, with WP:N proved primarily by the parent article. Yet, while some encyclopedic information is provided by this text, it also is lacking in style and coherence. The article is not fully compliant with WP:PLOT, but is it clear that this is a defect of the current version, and not fundamental to the topic. For this reason, I have editorially redirected to Naruto, and invite all interested editors to merge encyclopedic information thereto. The close is left as a "no consensus" to emphasize that the merge is editorial, and that a strong rewrite might make this article viable on its own. Xoloz 16:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naruto geography

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

Notability not established using reliable secondary sources per WP:N. Article only uses primary sources, which is not sufficient for notability criteria. See also WP:PLOT. Subdolous 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Will ^(talk) 19:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No indication of notability per WP:FICT. Also largely a plot summary. Doctorfluffy 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Deletion of this article under WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT was largely inevitable. A "Naruto universe" article along the lines of Ivalice or Universe of Kingdom Hearts would be a more appropriate for these lists of fictional topics. I've moved relevant material to my userspace in any case should any information need to be used in such an article or merged into relevant articles. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe we should change it from an article, to a list.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 23:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Reply - whether it is an article or a list it is irrelevant. The subject still needs to pass WP:FICT and it doesn't. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Oh, now I see what you mean by Notable, it hasn't received any attention from sources outside of Naruto itself.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 23:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Lacks sources to provide real world context and notability. Jay32183 00:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ridiculously filled with original content, the page has no secondary information either and fails WP:NOTE. The sources section lists the databooks as references but there is no indication that they're reliable. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete riddled with original research and seriously lacks the sourcing necessary to provide real-world context as outlined by WP:FICT, WP:N, and WP:PLOT. This article is just not notable and there is no realistic way to make it notable. Sure you could say that you could look for stuff on Google, but there are just too many fancruft sites to sort through. Sasuke9031 00:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable on its own. Axem Titanium 20:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The Naruto Wiki might want this, I'll drop them a note about it. -- Ned Scott 02:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• The full article is now on wikia:naruto:Naruto geography, including page history. If anyone is interested, User:Dantman is a good person to contact if you ever want to give an anime/manga/cartoon/comic article a new home. He is helping organize all those related wikis and is doing some really great work. See also Wikia ACG. -- Ned Scott 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like only the first 100 edits were copied. We shouldn't consider the transwiki complete at this point. Jay32183 00:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strange. I'll let them know about it. -- Ned Scott 02:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge anything that might be needed. I haven't seen the other Naruto articles much, but having some settings information somewhere wouldn't be too bad if cleaned up. -- Ned Scott 02:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Ned Scott.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Ned Scott. While the majority of that is worthless, there are a few which are worth noting. The big three already have mention in articles, so they're fine. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 02:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It describes the plot of a highly popular and notable anime and manga series, currently airing in America. A major rewrite is in order, but deleting it is overkill. dposse 18:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - Notability is not inherited, unfortunately. The notability of the article subject itself needs to be established using reliable secondary sources. Which it isn't. Subdolous 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I agree with what Dposse has said for this article.SuperN 19:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it, it is useful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.63.51 (talk)

  Comment - Usefulness is not an indicator of notability, which is a key criteria for the inclusion of articles on Wikipedia. See WP:USEFUL. Subdolous 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable outside the game, the game itself might be, but not a description of a part of it. Mbisanz 05:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per WP:SS. This isn't really a notability issue; essentially just a style issue. None of the pages in, say, Template:Pokemon directory for example, conform to the generic test of WP:N. Demanding substantial and credible coverage specifically on the subject of Naruto geography is nearly as ludicrous as demanding to see a NYT-like article devoted specifically to the subject of lists of Pokemon #461-480. Credible sources don't write about Naruto geography, lists of Pokemon having numbers between 461 and 480, or lists of bridges in China in particular -- they write about Naruto, Pokemon, and Bridges, and an exorbitant number of credible texts could be found which attend to those narrower topics but don't go into detail. WP:FICT agrees: "To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons).[3] In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article." Most topics -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game for example -- don't have the significance to merit WP:SPINOUTS of this kind; Naruto, being very highly significant, does. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - The Pokemon argument is basically WP:WAX, which is not a valid argument. Summary style does not apply here, because subarticles still need to pass criteria for notability. Causes of WWI is notable and can stand on its own, fictional geography is unfortunately not. The WP:FICT passage you quoted says "Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability," and WP:PLOT(which is policy, which trumps the guidelines that are cited here) is clear on this issue: "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context." Which is not the case here. Subdolous 16:40, 7 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.