Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninjutsu (Naruto) (second 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ninjutsu (Naruto)

• Note - this is the second nomination, the previous debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninjutsu (Naruto).
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 00:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I am nominating this list as I believe it's "indiscriminate information". It's just once long list of every single ninjutsu move that’s appeared in Naruto, which makes no sense in a wider context, and even within Naruto many of the moves aren't really notable, having only appeared once or twice in the source with little impact or no impact on the plot. There are other similar pages like List of taijutsu in Naruto, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate to nominate them all, so I'm just going for this one list now.FredOrAlive 21:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The separate subpages that make up the list:

List of ninjutsu in Naruto (A-G) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of ninjutsu in Naruto (H-R) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of ninjutsu in Naruto (S-Z) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of ninjutsu in Naruto (other media) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• You're nomianting a disambiguation page for deletion. Add the header to the rest if you want something to be accomplished. Keep in either case, as the listing exists to avoid having to explain the purpose of each and every odd trick these ninja pull off on every single page they're used. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  Then perhaps such descriptions should not be including in those articles in the first place? Zunaid©® 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  I've been doing that. – FredOrAlive 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  Moved the list to top for clarity. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - A perfectly fine article for a popular anime. dposse 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: It would be helpful to other editors if you could expand on your reasoning i.e. how is it a "fine article for a popular anime"? Zunaid©® 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Naruto is a popular franchise, but to go to this much detail is to provide too much information. The series is notable, but that does not make every microscopic detail of anything mentioned in it notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Not unless for each of these Jutsu's the article's creators can furnish multiple independent sources where it is the subject. The fact that it is seen in an episode or gets a passing reference in a game guide does not show it is notable. By that token, after almost 120 years of dedicated fancruft, Sherlock Holmes' nemesis Prof. Moriarty deserves an article, but Holmes' pipe and his syringe do not. Startrek has had a huge fan base for 40 years, but we do not need an article telling what kind of imaginary batteries to put in the phasor or other details in the fictional tech manual.Edison 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have to agree with Edison, this just seems like Naruto-cruft. And there's an image for nearly every ability?! It's possible that it could be greatly minimized and merged with Naruto (anime), but its current condition is not in accordance with the encyclopedia guidelines. Leebo⁸⁶ 23:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: I can angree that there is a lot of images in these sites but why not remowe some imgaes and just save the those who belong to moore advanced or complicated jutsus? And by the way, there is a lot of jutsus that not has a image. Jacce 22:04 10 January 2007

• Keep as per Someguy0830. Holmes' pipe would more accurately be compared to an article on a character's clothing or accessory (which are not that significant), whereas his detective methods or Baritsu might be considered article-worthy, similarly to the pages in question. --Pentasyllabic 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: quick overview lead me to believe that its well documented, it would be sad to lose such info. --CyclePat 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: I'm sure Comixpedia will take it thus the info will not be lost. Also, "well-documented" does not address the concerns raised above. Zunaid©® 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and give to Comixpedia per Edison's well thought out argument, especially because of a lack of "multiple third-party reliable sources" demonstrating notability. This info is too "high level of detail" and is inappropriate for the level of coverage an encyclopedia (even a non-paper one) should be giving. Zunaid©® 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - isn't Comixpedia for webcomics, not comic books in general? Although I agree there may be a more appropriate place for this outside Wikipedia, if anyone knows one. FredOrAlive 10:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Oh bugger. In that case it can be deleted so long, and if anyone finds a place willing to host it an admin can make it temporarily available. Zunaid©® 12:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP : Lots Of work went into this, and its not fake.There are loads of images because there have been over a year of filler episodes after the first season.thats almost 130ish episodes just for fillers. While its true that fillers have no major impact on the plot of the second season, they added depth to the "naruto" world. Besides the Second season is starting on the 15th of Feb.i woudl delete this page if the anime was over, but since theres a second season, i think its pointless to delete it. a bit of re orgaisation would be nice —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Endriago (talk • contribs).

  I'm not sure I understand your justification of the use of so many images. Doesn't the fair use template that was put on each image say a limited number of ... images. There's really no need to use that many, and it's beyond fair use. In addition, something doesn't stop being notable after it has ended. This list will either stay or be removed regardless of the current state of the Naruto television show. It's excessive detail, and its "usefulness" to a particular segment of Naruto fandom is not a critieria for keeping it in the encyclopedia. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - I'm not singling out attacks from the anime "filler" episodes, I'm saying a large number of attacks / jutsu in general aren't notable, including those in the comic / manga. As for the "lots of work" argument, I belive that doesn't really count here (I'm not an expert), but as I've said above, if there's another place that'll take the list (is there a Naruto wiki?) then there's nothing to stop it being moved. FredOrAlive 15:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - If you want to clean up the articles and keep only the most important, then fine. However, deletion is overkill. dposse 16:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - like I said I believe the list has little use within the context of Naruto (important jutsus seem to be explained when they come up in articles anyway), and pretty much none in a more general context of Wikipedia. FredOrAlive 16:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - You are mistaken. The articles are of great use. And do not make such judgments as "seems like Naruto-cruft" or "seem to be explained" if you didn't actually look at the articles. This is important information. Naruto ninjutsu is a complicated matter, therefore it's reasonably necessary to keep the articles with the aim of explaining the issue. Arfan (Talk) 17:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaiser jay (talk • contribs).
• Delete all - this is detailed trivia. That a lot of work went into it, doesn't make it any less so. -- Whpq 16:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree that this page and its subpages go much into details, see guidelines for the inclusion of fictional articles and wikipedia's style guide for writing on fiction. However, it would be too cruel to delete all because it's the contribution of many people. I think we should cleanup the page by eliminating all the redundant details and shorten it as much as possible. Four subpages also should be merged into one article._AbelinCAusesobad 16:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- This is an interesting reference. Without it there's no way the readers can comprehend the complex ninjutsu used in this manga, which, in turn, cause them trouble reading and understanding other Naruto-related articles. Arfan (Talk) 16:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  For comparison, I'm sure Pokemon has an equally daunting assortment of skills and abilities that are used in the various iterations of the series. But I do not believe there is any list that details each one of them, and there shouldn't be, because that level of detail is not necessary for the reader to use the Pokemon articles and understand the concept of the skills and abilities. As long as the idea of the jutsu are discussed in general, and the major ones detailed, there is no need to mention (and picture) every single one of them. Leebo⁸⁶ 17:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  There is no list for Pokémon. List of Pokémon attacks was deleted. --Squilibob 23:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - Did you actually read those Naruto-related articles? Or do you just protest against something that you have utterly no knowledge of? If that's the case, I'm afraid your preposterous comparison is of little value. Arfan (Talk) 18:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  I have not read every Naruto-related article (only some of them), but I did not have trouble understanding them as a results of my limited knowledge of every existing jutsu. I don't think it's preposterous, I think it's appropriate; I don't see the difference in detailing every ability in one anime versus another. Leebo⁸⁶ 18:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. This is a debate on Ninjutsu (Naruto), so please address your comments on this matter. A comparison with Pokemon or whatsoever isn't a good argument and therefore would be considered worthless. I recommend you refer to WP Arguments to avoid: What about article X to learn why your above comments won't help. Arfan (Talk) 05:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it! I know it's "fluff", but it's meaningful fluff! It adds a lot of supplementary information to the "Naruto" universe. I really think it should be kept on, as-is.64.251.48.178 19:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- All of these abilities apply to all of the characters and their development. (filler and all) why throw away all of this work? Verde830 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- The pages is good for new Naruto fans who wants to se how the technique has been used and who can use it and what kind of magic the Naruto characters can use. Jacce 21:42, 10 January 2007
• Keep - I hate to turn into a raving inclusionist on this one, but the article is verifiable by reliable sources - the specific anime and manga (on the other hand, those are primary sources). The overall subject (Naruto) is clearly notable, so we're really dealing with a question of how much specificity should the Naruto article series contain. The closest thing to a relevant guideline, Notability (fiction) states Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. This article is well written given the subject matter, meets the core policies, and seems to be dead on with the relevant section of Notability (fiction). Ultimately, I say keep. With respect, other than the argument that it's primary sourced, which is not grounds for deletion, the main deletion argument looks a lot like some flavor of IDONTLIKEIT to me. TheronJ 21:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  The articles are written in an In-universe manner and there are no inline references, is that really a well written article? What part of Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Fiction_in_Wikipedia is the relevant section? --Squilibob 23:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Squil, you are right that it doesn't meet the "out of universe" style guideline - I only meant that it was, IMHO, well written in a more colloquial sense. I do encourage the Naruto editors to start a project to bring their pages more in line with the style guides, but of course, that's not grounds for deletion. The relevant section of Notability (fiction), IMHO, is the section I put in italics above. IMHO, this is "Minor concepts . . . merged with short descriptions" and placed in a separate article because the wouldn't fit in the main article. According to the Notability (fiction) notes, the guideline was based in large parts over debates about Lord of the Rings -- compare List of Middle-earth weapons for a similar level of fictioncruft and/or encyclopedic detail. Thanks! TheronJ 15:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This could be helpful for Japanimation fans, such as I, who actually like this. Mr. Brigg's Ink 00:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Please don't let this articles being delate. I know alot of people who use this articles in their Naruto fanfiction story for the info that it gave on all the ninjutsu. I being one of them and it would be alot harded to write the way the ninjutsu work without this articles and the other type of jutsu to. Plus this articles give the fan of Naruto the ninjutsu of the show that haven't been air yet in the USA and the manga one to. Miyuki97 02:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  Usefulness is not a criterion for inclusion. Please cite other reasons besides the usefulness amongst Naruto fans. There are many things that are both true and useful that can't be included in the encyclopedia, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Leebo⁸⁶ 02:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per everyone else. A merge wouldn't work, the article it got merged with would be too long, so it is all or nothing. Naruto was previsly #13 (or something) on the most recently visted articles list meaning that many IP's and registered members look at Naruto and Naruto related articles. This action would piss off the IP's and cause trouble for those who edit these pages constantly (myself included) and there you would be sitting pretty with not a care in the world while we sit here answering IP after IP on why we have no ninjutsu article then we would complain to you and you would be tired then everyone would get uncivil and an edit war would start and the article would come back. Ha, reminds me of the post World War 1 era up into WW2.Sam ov the blue sand 02:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is not francruft, and despite its length, is an important part of the Naruto universe. By the logic of this discussion, as well, deleting this section would imply the deletion of every other list of jutsu. Especially with the more complex ones, see Kekkei genkai, it is highly difficult for a reader of any of these articles to make any sort of sense of them when any of the above are mentioned. Ninjutsu, by happenstance, simply happens to be the largest article. Size can be corrected. The original intent of the article is entirely fine. Sephiroth BCR 02:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, a necessary part of comprehensive coverage of the series. In fact, a necessary part of comprehensible coverage of the series. Far from being fancruft, this glossary page is necessary to keep the rest of the pages from becoming fancruft, in that without it they would be impossible for the non-fan to understand. They do suffer from some serious WP:NOR concerns due to their listing of jutsu by editor-invented English translations rather than the romaji forms, but that can be solved without deleting them. --tjstrf talk 06:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Naruto is a very popular manga/anime and I think the fans would be upset and angry if the pages with the most basic and important information was deleted. --Jacce 21:46 11 January 2007

  Comment Better reasons than "we'll piss off the fans" need to be given. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  I am very torn about that. I am starting to think that ILIKEIT is a fair rejoinder to IDONTLIKEIT. (Note, of course, that my response was chock-full of policy analysis, and, IMHO, should be the final word). TheronJ 22:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  It wasn't so much in response to you as the shorter summaries. Such comments tend to plague these AfDs. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to comment from a neutral point of view here. There are some very good cases on the deletion side while discussions coming from the keep side are baseless. Yes a lot of people have contributed to this article, does that help it surviving an Afd? No.

  Yes Naruto is popular and this collection of lists is helpful to fans - doesn't help saving it from deletion.

  The articles aren't well written, they're too in-universe. Does that mean they should be deleted? No.

  Do they violate any Wikipedia policies? Yes, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (#7)

  Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. In-universe information, such as a plot summary or character list, may be appropriate as a brief aspect of a larger topic.

  I think that the problem with this afd is that people voting on the keep side should vote with their contributions to fixing the article up. The articles need to be rewritten as per tjstrf, and in an out-universe manner with in-line references to have the indiscriminate collection of information issues resolved.

  A majority of Keep votes will not save the article, addressing the policy issues will. --Squilibob 05:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, per --tjstrf's and Someguy0830's reasons. (Me | The Article) 06:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Someguy0830's reasons. Yes, the article has some problems, but those can be fixed without deleting the whole thing. Raven23 14:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment About the whole "try editing the problems thing" ever think we have more to do than edit Wikipedia all day long.Sam ov the blue sand 22:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment is this supposed to be for or against the articles being retained? It seems rather against as you seem to be saying that it can't be edited to comply with wikipedias's guidelines as the contributors have other things to do. Of course as the person who nomiated the article for deletion, I'm biased towards deletion of course. FredOrAlive 01:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I meant my comment as tosay that some times people don't the time to edit Wikipedia all day long, there's school, girlfriends, cell phone bills, friends, ect, ect. See my point? ^_^Sam ov the blue sand 05:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  You're not helping, just so you know. This is not a valid "keep" argument." – Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  Yeh well this guy assumes we all have the day to sit at a computer and edit all day long and that is not true.Sam ov the blue sand 05:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  He's not assuming anything like that. You merely think he is. Regardless, it matters not, as it is not a factor in this debate. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I can't believe some people want to delete this. Xepeyon 19:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Its Very good information, and should be kept. Krauser93 03:10, 14 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.