Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninjutsu (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 of the debate was after discounting sockpuppet votes, no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ninjutsu (Naruto)

A massive, wholly unencyclopedic list of every single jutsu from a long-running anime/manga series, complete with overspecific descriptions and an utter lack of context. While Naruto is notable, this list of every single jutsu from the series is pure listcruft. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• No vote I can't get worked up over this, but check out the rest of {{Naruto info}}. Melchoir 10:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep perhaps it could be edited down and sorted to resemble List of Pokémon attacks (which sorts attacks rather than just giving their type within the entry). Needs serious cutting, though. Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mgm. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I may not find it interesting, but someone who wasted about four hours of his life on it must think differently. Bobby1011 15:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft... "wasted" is right.--Isotope23 17:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete with extreme prejudice. I have no idea why this is encyclopedic. "verbose" might be a more apt term. aa v ^ 21:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NG, vancarlimospacecraft Avi 21:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mgm. WriterFromAfar755 23:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Avi. Stifle 23:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Avi, and suggest that the author try Geocities Ergot 00:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I hope that this doesn't come off as too defensive or hostile. To those who think it's not encyclopedic, what makes it not so (besides being very long and fictional)? I (and probably most other frequent Naruto editors) realize that there's a problem with article length, but nobody has a good, efficient solution other than splitting up the pages. --Pentasyllabic 00:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I'm very new to Wikipedia, but I've read through the guidelines for deletion and I don't see anything that applies... could someone explain the issue here? What is 'listcruft'? What makes self-acknowledged list like that in Baby_of_the_House acceptable and this one not? I'm not a Naruto maniac, and I found this (via Google) while I was trying to make head or tail of it... i.e. it was somewhat useful and also as noted clearly represents a lot of work. Why does it need to go?
• KEEPKEEPKEEP Why should anyone delete this?! This is a TON of EXTREMELY useful information in regards to Naruto! It's just plainly unfair to tear it down after so much work has obviously been put into it!
• Strong Keep It may need a bit of organization, but that doesn't justify deleting the whole thing. A ton of work was put into this, and you want to destroy it seemingly because you don't care. SA9097
• Strong Keep I'm currently working on reorganising. Besides, I think it's very useful for those interested in Naruto. --JadziaLover 11:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Information worthy of being kept, as part of Wikipedia being a resource for people trying to learn more about popular culture. ~GMH talk to me 16:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I might be willing to go along with those saying it's listcruft if there were a Wiki resource for anime similar to what Memory-Alpha.org does for Star Trek, but there isn't that I've seen. Plus I have found this article useful when trying to refresh my memory on what occured in remote backissues of the manga, and having it here was much better than having it at an ad-laden, inefficiently designed website like NarutoFan. Plus it exemplifies one of Wikipedia's strengths: a traditional encyclopedia would have a very weak main article on Naruto, if any at all. Articles like this strengthen Wikipedia's position as a reference of note for popular culture. Istewart 01:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's really informative if you are a fan of the series, and you will not find all this information compiled in this way elsewhere on the Internet. It also explains the translated names of all the Jutsus, wich is really interesting. I see no pourpose of deleting this. Mark the Echidna 15:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP What's the freakin point scrubbin' the list of the techniques?! Just now I'm using reference from this to make techniques of my own (like, inspiring it from them or taking their Kanji symbols). If this is gone, all the signs will point at you Man in Black... You should consider looking at the Naruto characters page! Datavi X 12:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP - Great information for those interested in this subject! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.45.141.63 (talk • contribs) .

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.