Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece attacks

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 arrived at after a debate that was uglier than it needed to be.

The nomination was a very poor one. The use of the word cruft in a debate of this nature is always ill-advised, and to state that as the reason for deletion means that the vast majority of the debate descends into argument by assertion. One man's "cruft" is another man's priceless tidbit on information, and regardless of anything else it's incredibly rude to the individuals who have volounteered their time creating the article to use a belitteling and pejorative term. Moving on...

It's standard practice to list all previous deletion debates, so everyone knows the history. Not required per se but always a good idea.

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece Attacks, which resulted in delete, closed 26 April 2006.
  • 3 June 2006 Retro7 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) created this article, with the edit summary, "I don't care what that killjoy says. There nothing wrong or useless giving infomation OP attacks. There more information coming, please help me by filling out the article."
  • The page at that time was "substantially identical" to the deleted article, and thus a candidate for speedy deletion... but it slipped the net.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece Games, a group nomination where all were kept, closed 31 July 2006.
  • A strong argument could be made that the existing article is also a candidate for speedy deletion, as while a lot more detail has been added (extra attacks, descriptions, etc.) nothing to indicate either why this is signifigant not any reliable sources have been added.

And the reliable sources are the problem with this article. Although it took until the fourth of October for it to come out, "Its [sic] completed unsourced." The website linked is not a reliable source. Due to the requirement that all articles be unbiased there must be the ability for articles to be verified. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

This is, to some degree, a rip-off 1 for the "defenders" of the article. Since this point was lost in the morass of circular discussion, they never focused their energy on finding sources to it. The debate from 5 October onwards about items of fiction serving as their own source is an interesting one, but is not sufficient to eclipse both the foundational principles of Wikipedia and long-established collective consensus.

Delete.

brenneman {L} 12:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

1 Yes, this does say "rip-off." A fast one, the run around, etc. While it seems unlikely that reliable sources could be found, it was not shouted out that this was the criterion. It's always the criterion, so this is also a tip-off: The quickest way to end almost any deletion discussion is to provide reliable sources. Don't get sucked into arguing about what's important.

[edit] One Piece attacks

Delete - I think the term for this is "listcruft", if a character is important enough to have their own article, then surely the attack can be listed there, if they are not ? Well who cares? Charlesknight 10:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say move them to the character's article. However, having an attack list would make the character own article page neater. But I am all for delete. Kljs 7:33, 17 September 2006 (EMT)

How would having an attack list in the character's page make it neater? It was like that for the longest time, then we decided when the pages where being cleaned, to make a break out page of all the One Piece attacks for characters that have more then five attacks in order for the pages to not be half actual data, and half attacks. (Justyn 06:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC))

Neutral for the moment: Could you explain the arguement a bit more? Characters who have less than 5 attacks have their attacks listed on their own article/section. The Splendiferous Gegiford 16:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I can, I was reading this and then had a look at the page. What does the one page attacks page consist of ? Well when you break it down, it's a list of the different ways one character can punch another in the face. Using this logic, we should create a page for DC universe offensive use of superpowers - Superman has quite a few and using them in combination he can work up more than 5 "attacks". Once we have done this, we can move onto the same for the Marvel Universe etc. When you consider that minor characters should not have their own articles unless there is good reason.... attacks? --Charlesknight 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Except it's not different ways a character punches someone in the face. In case you haven't watched much anime, the characters tend to have "named attacks" that are different from their normal ones, which is different from the way American comics tend to do things. If Superman had, say, an attack called "Fury of Krypton" where he did a bunch of attacks using his powers, I could see your point. But he doesn't. Sigmasonic X 04:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
But he does have named and defined superpowers which basically amounts to the same thing. Johnny Storm has about 6 or 7 offensive attacks that have defined names in the comics (Supernova, fireballs etc) - a quick check (and it is quick as I'm off to the station) suggests that we don't give those their own articles. --Charlesknight 04:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
And Superman's powers are listed, are they not? Sigmasonic X 05:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral for the moment: I am neither for or against deletion, though I have disagreed with the need for this page since its creatation I have come to understand why it was created in the first place. Some of these attacks are listed for support on the main characters pages. Sometimes we reference a move on the pages, its nice to have something up explaining how that move works. When they were on the pages, they took up a lot of space and made it look sloppy which displeased many editors of the said pages who had to work around them. They were given their own pages to solved this problem, allowing room for expansion on details (which hasn't happened too much it seems). Angel Emfrbl 19:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Sheesh, do we have to go through this again? Surely you've noticed how many attacks the characters, especially Luffy and Sanji, have? They would take up over half of their characters' pages if they were moved back there. And if you think this is cruft, I wonder what you'd think of Ninjutsu (Naruto), which has four pages worth of attacks, several of which have pictures, some of which are even gifs, and include several characters that only make brief appearences. Sigmasonic X 01:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The presence of other bad articles is not a reason to keep this one. — Haeleth Talk 10:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Having all of the attacks in one place makes things much easyer on everyone, because it clears up OTHER pages. And this WAS already nominated for deletion, and it was kept, what makes this time different?

Comment This AfD is improperly fomatted, as it claims to be 11-17-06. FrozenPurpleCube 03:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Hopefully an admin will fix it.

opps - the clock on my computer was accidently set two months forward and so that was automatically set as the date when it was generated, I'll see about fixing it. --Charlesknight 19:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep: I don't want character pages to be half attacks half actual information. -WikiXan 22:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete: An encyclopedia, not a fan-guide! or at least rename to One Piece/Attacks so that it is obviously a sub-page. For all i knew it could have been a chess article. --Darkfred Talk to me 22:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep: The information about the attacks of various characters listed on the page is important to the section on One Piece. It provides us with great descriptions of their attacks, & they'd take up too much space if added to the individual characters' profiles.

What about One Piece Abilities and Attacks? (Justyn 06:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC))
Exactly what are you trying to say? Sigmasonic X 04:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's listcruft and fancruft. Make a site for One Piece, and post it there. Wikipedia doesn't need this type of list. RobJ1981 04:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Listcruft and Fancruft are not reasons for Deletion. (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment Okay seriously am getting sick of this, we've stated our case more then once to you people. We've told you more the once that this is not the only attack guide for an anime series (check Naruto, Bleach and DBZ for example) and it IS vital to the articule, this is not fancruft. We've been professional about it despite a few immature people puttng down useless information and even tried to compromise by giving it its own page and rules to follow but once again you people keep coming back trying to delete it. What is it that we have to do to prove this is nessercary, hmmm? Please tell me cause all am hearing is very useless claims. Oh and in case you haven't noticed this whole article, each and every page, is written from fans of the series, shall we delete this too?-User:Retro7
    • This is fan material, in Games we have a consensus that strategy guide material gets moved to the game wiki. I think the same should hold true for anime episode and series guide material. This is simply not encyclopedic. An encyclopedia is for people to reference unknown information, a good article would tell them what they need to know about the series and where to find more info. The One Piece article and associated pages however, have become a dumping spot for fan research/listmaking and fan club activities. We need to find a better wiki for this info, drive it there and kick it out the door without stopping. --Darkfred Talk to me 18:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I can give examples of many cases where fans have expanded upon wikipedia articles in this such way. These pages tend to be the most informative pages on wikipedia despite being questionable as to whether they are true encyclopedic anymore. Fans care about the areas they are intereasted in, you can't change that... Its no different to the Star Trek, Doctor Who, Home and Away, Mortal Kombat pages and so forth. Sine they are fans, they pay more attention to the series and have a lot of info they wanted to put up, odd bits they've noticed... Things like that. All I can say is every Wikipedia One Piece page is a 'working in progress' so to speak and we're trying to improve them. Angel Emfrbl 16:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Game wiki? Explain. If you mean that wikibooks thing that didn't work before. Sigmasonic X 04:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I will now post the information that is still relevent that was brought up it FIRST time you guys tried to delete this:

"Everything you listed for deletion is a valid compendium of information for this series. Regardless of what you think about the amount of pages and detailed information, the fact of the matter is that the One Piece franchise has alot of details in its plot, characters, and general information overall. All of these pages are usefull for compiling information on the anime series, manga, video games, etc" ~Lordshmeckie

(Justyn 00:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC))


You people - would you like to mind your tone and act with a little civility towards your fellow editors? --Charlesknight 00:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I was acting civil, that was directed to those who are trying to delete this page. Though I apologize if I offend. - User: Retro7


Sorry, you guys. I'm sick with a realy bad head cold right now. (Justyn 01:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

  • Keep: We've been over this before, and every time, the page was deemed acceptable to keep. There's no reason to delete this, unless you've just seen the page and are unaware that the page has been through this argument before. One Piece is filled with a wide variety of unique, named attacks. So much so that a compendium of them all is perfectly acceptable. 71.246.83.63 01:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE with extreme prejudice. My god, this is worse listcruft than that time someone made all those lists of dead porn stars... ♠PMC♠ 01:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Listcruft is not a reason for deletion. (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))
Comment You're compairing this with dead prostitutes!!??? That's way beyond what's being discussed here, out of context, uncivil, and is a first class request for a fight!!!CalicoD.Sparrow 10:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep: I know this page looks like it needs some work and I would much prefer some of the attacks to be in the character articles, but this page actually works. It looks like listcruft and fancruft but so are those Naruto Ninjutsu pages in a nutshell. Don't delete this page or at least tick off those who support it with comments such as "this is worse listcruft than that time someone made all those lists of dead porn stars". Those won't gain you any support.CalicoD.Sparrow 10:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The presence of other bad articles is not a reason to keep this one. — Haeleth Talk 10:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is not fancruft. Attacks and special abilities are notable things in a notable anime, One Piece. If this goes, so should everything unrelated to the main characters. Belgium EO 03:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The anime is notable, but these are not notable things in it. And yes, it is quite possible that there are many other articles on other non-notable aspects of the anime, and yes, those should also be deleted. Feel free to nominate them. — Haeleth Talk 10:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If Rīshan, a pokemon that does not even have a picture yet has it's own artical, I think this should too. (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))

  • Comment Now listed properly. Kevin_b_er 03:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is listcruft. We aren't an indescriminate collection of information. Its completed unsourced. Not even Pokémon has a list of all the attacks the creatures can do. What bering on an encyclopedia does each possible activity of a character does this have? The previous was a grouped deletion request, and was filled with anonymous editors and sockpuppets. The grouping may have disturbed this as a valid arguement for deletion on listcruft. A fansite should have this page, NOT wikipedia. --Kevin_b_er 03:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Listcruft is not a reason for deletion. (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete what on earth is this? megalistcruft Bwithh 03:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Udend 03:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Listcruft and Fancruft are not reasons for Deletion (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Strong Hammer Party Table Kick Octopus Arm Miracle Swords Diamond Fists Delete. bikeable (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Why? (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Strong Hammer Party Table Kick Octopus Arm Miracle Swords Diamond Fists Delete this interminable listfancruft. -- Hoary 04:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Listcruft is not a reason for deletion. (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete --Peta 04:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Why? (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Merge each character's attacks into that character's article (Monkey D. Luffy, Roronoa Zoro, etc.) to the extent verifiable, and delete this page. You'll notice there's no X-Men powers page - why would anyone look such a thing up? If you want to see what Wolverine can do, you search for Wolverine. --Hyperbole 05:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Gomu Gomu no Delete do we need to mention every single attack anyone ever did in One Piece? Just merge the notable attacks, vape the rest. Danny Lilithborne 06:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If Rīshan, a pokemon that does not even have a picture yet has it's own artical, I think this should too. (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))

  • What the F-? This is excellent information for a One Piece fansite, but Wikipedia doesn't fall into that category. Delete as listcruft of the highest order. OBM | blah blah blah 08:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete This is some darn long listcruft, we don't need all the attacks about One Piece on Wikipedia, this should go to a fansite or a One Piece wiki. --Terence Ong (T | C) 09:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft, couldn't possibly be of interest to non-fans. JIP | Talk 09:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong, it is; read ONUnicorn's post. And List/fancruft is not a reason for deletion ~Justyn
  • Delete, listcruft. If the characters' individual pages are too cluttered to include lists of their important attacks, then clean up the characters' pages too, because if they're anything like most anime character pages then they're crammed full of cruft themselves. Read WP:FICT and kindly follow its guidelines; if you want a wiki devoted to every little detail of the One Piece universe, start your own One Piece wiki, because this isn't it. This is an encyclopedia, not a Onepieceopedia, and we provide overviews of culturally important phenomena, which means we describe One Piece but not every goddamn attack any character ever used. — Haeleth Talk 10:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean it up to make it more encyclopedic. If Superman getsS a full page for all of his abilities, I don't see the problem of a whole series having one. Nemu 10:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Powers and abilities of Superman is a Wikipedia:Summary style breakout sub-article of a section in Superman. Breakout articles on individual facets of a subject aren't necessary if there is room for them in the overall article. The characters in One Piece minor characters don't even have enough to warrant a full article overall, let alone to warrant breakout articles on their attacks. And looking at Monkey D. Luffy and Roronoa Zoro there appears to be plenty of room yet without need for sub-articles. Why on Earth do you think that it is a reasonable arrangement of information to have all of these attacks together in a separate article on attacks rather than in the articles, or the sections of One Piece minor characters, on the characters whose attacks they are? (Several characters already have "attack list" sections, notice.) What justification for such an eccentric arrangement is there? Uncle G 11:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep or merge to the characters' own articles. Its long, but fancruft is not a guideline or policy nor is it a reason for deletion. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 12:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per Haeleth's awesome argument. Recury 14:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete mmm..mmm...mmm crufty Wildthing61476 15:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Fan/Listcruft is not a reason for deletion. (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete' - Per Haeleth's and Uncle G's comments. Wickethewok 15:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Ugh. Unencyclopedic. --kingboyk 15:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong, it is; read ONUnicorn's post. And List/fancruft is not a reason for deletion ~Justyn
  • Delete. If an attack is an important part of a character's identity, put it on that character's page. If not, don't mention it! Many of these attacks appear to be only used once in a single episode. Zetawoof(ζ) 17:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, by it's nature it's an unverifiable piece of original research that can only be checked by going through the whole series and finding all these attacks. It's far too in depth for an encyclopedia and contains only trivial information. Textbook listcruft. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Surely there is a better forum for such information. This information is not encyclopedic. Sorry. Phiwum 18:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vast list of vastly non-notable info. Sam Clark 21:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete please. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, WP is not a mirror for fansites. This information goes way beyond the remit of an encyclopedia, it isn't presented in a format designed for interested outsiders, it's giddily stacked up for fans to pore over and soak up. WP is for sharing with the rest of us, fan sites are for sharing with other fans. QuagmireDog 23:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Commenting with a DON.

First: I must comment on something, you caught the One Piece section at a major crossroads, we are at the tail end of choosing, once and for all, what names should be dominent; the names used by Viz and 4kids, or the original names. We chose the original names for the most part, and now we are starting to actualy bring the articles up to speed. We are just now begining to rewrite stub articals, add references, and all the other things neccisary to bring these pages to Wikipedia's standards. We are working to get the character pages nice and tidy, this would be a massive setback.

And, there are very few frequent editors of the One Piece section, if any of you want to help you MORE then welcome to, we need the help, please, if you know a large amount about One Piece, please help bring these pages to par.

Second: There is no actual guidelines for fancruft, and being fancruft is not a reason for deletion in and of itself. This is not a "indiscriminate collection of information" and as Wikipedia defines that:

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:
Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered.
Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks.
Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
Textbooks and annotated texts. These belong on our sister project, Wikibooks.
Plot summaries. 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. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series."

This catagory fits into NONE of those, in other words: not an indiscriminate collection of information. Don't bring this up again, you would just be making an ass out of yourself.

And as I said: we are working on bringing all of the One Piece pages up to par, and I will bring up that this page should be our top priority. And another thing: The pages under Ninjutsu (Naruto) are not currently up for deletion. Why is that? The Naruto Ninjutsu are just as much "fancruft" and "indiscriminate collection of information" as the ones for One Piece, and there are SIX PAGES of them, and only ONE for One Piece. And this is very important as well: the Kamehameha Attack HAS IT'S OWN PAGE. If giving ONE ATTACK it's own page is not fancruft, then this is not fancruft either. Powers and abilities of Superman is the same thing as this; for one character.

Now, it looks to me like I just nuked your grounds for deleting this page.

Now that I have stated as to why this is NOT fancruft, anyone who still thinks that this should be deleted, post a goddamned good reason that is "indiscriminate collection of information", or "Fancruft" or "Listcruft", or I will notify some Admins that this was dicided to be kept due to no ground for deletion.

I think that all of you that just said "indiscriminate collection of information", "Fancruft" or "Listcruft" should alter your post to give more exact reasons, or I don't think that your votes should be counted, or should just be removed.

You will notice that I used swearwords in my post, this was not to insult the people on the side of deleting; this was to enphisize my point; I said that I would be commenting with a DON. (Justyn 05:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

Question: what's a DON? --Charlesknight 08:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I would think the articles about Ninjutsu (Naruto) are also borderline deletion candidates. But as for Superman, I think he is notable enough to have a separate article for his powers and abilities. JIP | Talk 05:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Those categories aren't the only possible indiscriminate collections of information. Indiscriminate lists of things like every gun in every video game ever, or every song about love, or every female fictional character, have all shown strong support for deletion. My main objection to this is its fundamentally Original Research nature; it can't cite anything but the primary source as support for its content. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
JIP: And if Superman alone deserves this honor, why does the entirety of One Piece not deserve it? One Piece is the fourth best selling Manga in the history of Shōnin Jump, the second current best selling, and is Japan's most popular series currently.
First, I think Superman is known in more countries than One Piece. And second, more importantly, if you actually read Powers and abilities of Superman, you can see that each power and ability is described in detail, to explain why it is important. This article, though, is just a listing that mentions the name and the movement involved. It adds no value to the article about the series. JIP | Talk 06:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Like I said already, we are bringing the articles up to par. And in the more then half a century that Superman has been around, they have found the time to put a lot of details into his powers. And as you pointed out, Superman is more well known, I would not doubt everyone knows who he is. And One Piece has only been out for nine years, versus half a century for Superman, who has had HOW many retcons? I have a strong feeling that there will not be consensus on deleting the page. (Justyn 06:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
Night Gyr: What exactly do you define as enough things to cite for content? And another example of idiscriminate information: "List of fictional characters that pick their noses."

(Justyn 05:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not lists prominant cases, it is not the end all for all possible cases of indescriminant information. If we're going to compare this to the superman article: this does not describe what each one is at all and it doesn't list every last thing superman's done. This list pretty much has every single thing they've called what they've done. If you wish to try to spout popularity, Superman's an iconic character embodying a superhero, and is over 60 years old, who started the Golden Age of Comic Books. There's little comparison to be had with that article in the end. What place does this list have for the general reader? Why do they need to know it? To answer a question some might have, no, they don't need to know the translation of every single action the characters of it could possibly do. Kevin_b_er 06:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and let me add another big one that noone has mentioned, verifiability. What verifies that this information belongs here? The series? That's self-referential in nature. Why would bringing up pages related to this series neccessitate this page? Why does a translation effort need this page? Do you not have any sources for the list to verify that all your translations are completely correct? This page has almost no use to an encyclopedia. If you have no verifiability, perhaps you should read What's wrong with an in-universe perspective?, as that is what this is. In fact, the article/list is entirely a piece of in-universe perspective. Kevin_b_er 06:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was simply trying to bring up something that was already mentioned; I just worded it wrong. What I ment was that if one character can have a page devoted to his abilities that have been tweeked, added, removed, increased, decreased, for sixty years; why must an entire series, who's pages are still being fixed up mind you, have facts split up over a large number of pages as opposed to having them all gathered for easy reference?
As I said you are catching these pages right in the middle of being brought up to spec. It's like saying an unfinished building is not up to code.
And anyone who can read Japanese can varify the translations. (Justyn 06:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
So what usefulness does it have in an encyclopedic aspect? "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective." As I've said, this has no real usefulness unless you are a fan of the series. In fact, the average person doesn't care about every last translation into japanese, because most of the english speaking population doesn't know it. I'm also looking at the talk page, several of these 'attacks' have only been used once. What good is a one-oft list of actions? Kevin_b_er 06:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The article was originaly written in an a in-univerce style, and honestly, the majority of the editors would rather get all the facts streight, then do the re-wording, and I know someone who can start working on re-wording the pages and I myself can help with re-wording. And this page serves the perpose of consolidation; why should this information take up space and make the character pages look bad, when the information can be in one place for easy reference, and as I have said, many times, the pages are not done. And if the Kamehameha attack is not fancruft, then why is this?.
And you say that most of the english speaking population does not know it, that is true, but, is not the perpose of an encyclopedia to educate? Why should the people have to look for a long while go to some obscure site to learn the original names used?
Also, the perpose behind putting in once used attacks, is because the list would not be complete without them. (Justyn 07:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Gomu gomu no delete. Hopelessly in-universe, doesn't make any sense at all unless you're deeply steeped in One Piece lore (and this is speaking as a One Piece fan, so no "nn 'cause you don't know about it, huh" cracks), many of these attacks are one-offs never mentioned a second time... this is an irredeemable mess, and would make for poor material for a fanpage, let alone a general-purpose encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    How is it "Hopelessly in-universe"? Nothing that actualy be edited from scratch is hopeless. The fact is, people are viewing an unfinished page, and saying that it is not up to spec, even though it's not up to spec, because it's not finished. And, everyone is so gung-ho to delete the page, noone is thinking of ways to make it better. (Justyn 08:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
    I suppose I could hope that someone would go through the list and add some sort of real-world context to this list. My optimism isn't up to the task, however, especially given that I can't imagine (besides, ugh, listing the episodes/volumes each attack appears in) and form that real-world context would take.
    This list article isn't unfinished; it's unencyclopedic, not in form but in function. It could be made better by deleting it and describing the visual style and narrative style, based on reliable sources, in the One Piece article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    Not finished in your oppinion, have you looked into what has been going on in the One Piece section? And why would the page be served better by deletion, when it can be fixed by re-wording? And can you tell me exactly what part of reliable sources are you refering to? Because if it's the supply sourses, we're in the process of that, we just need time, and you are more then welcome to help. (Justyn 08:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
    What kind of rewording is going to make this not a list of trivia, largely comprised of one-off attacks that aren't even important in the work in which they appear?
    What kind of sources? If they're screenshots/movies, fansites, the manga volumes, or "official" guides, then I'm not particularly moved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    First off, we will reword it so that it is not in-universe. We will add sources. And most likely get rid of the non-canon attack to clear out space.
    So sources... you're saying that One Piece itself is not a source for information on One Piece? Okay then, what do you define as a source?(Justyn 09:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
    No, you shouldn't use direct observation as a source, no more than Deuce, my cat, is a source for cat. I suggest reading WP:RS, for ideas on sources. I can't think of any sources that would cover this subject, however - hence, delete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    [1] States that for Fiction and Pop culture, you can use the best source available. And I classify something that anyone can look at by going to Youtube, or "finding" the fansubbed episodes, as the best available source. (Justyn 10:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
    WP:V (and common sense) says that when there ain't sources, there ain't an article. I could write cheese with facts that "anyone can find out by going to the store and looking at cheese," but thank Eris I haven't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    Quoted from The Manual of Style
    list omitted for readability
    And I believe that the Manga chapters and Anime episode count as source material. (Justyn 10:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
    This list describes a thing sourced entirely to the observation of the subject, and that's not appropriate, whether or not you find a loophole in WP:V, WP:RS, or obscure arbcom cases. If you can't (or refuse to) understand that direct observation of the subject is not appropriate as the only source for an article on that subject, nothing I can say give you any satisfaction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the one who is refusing to believe anything, I have read those policies and guidelines, which you obviously need to carefuly re-read.
WP:RS#Popular_culture_and_fiction links directly to this, and if the policy links to something as an exapmle, how is it obscure?
Also, most fictional sources can only be varified by reading them. Should we delete the entire One Piece section because almost all of it is based on observation? If you don't watch the series, you would'nt even know who the characters are, should we delete the character pages because the information was taken directly from the metaphorical horse's mouth?
And, WP:V does not discuss fictional sources, at all. Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reputable_publications says that a fictional work can funtion as it's own primary source. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Sources for articles on fiction also says that a fictional source can funtion as it's own source. Where is the policy or guideling that states that you can't use the fictional work that we are dicussing as a source for itself?
Where does it state that you cannot use easily reapeatable personal observations of a fictional source? Link to it, or stop bringing it up. (Justyn 15:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete, per nom. Cedars 08:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Cedars just proved my above point, and obviously did not read the debate. People are too gung-ho to delete the page without trying to save it, and it's not even a finished page! (Justyn 08:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
Do we have finished pages at wikipedia? --Charlesknight 10:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I ment it's still a work in progress. (Justyn 10:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment I don't think whether it's a work in progress or not is to the point. This is never going to be an appropriate article, because it's a list of material which is only of interest to fans (=non-encyclopedic) and which can only be sourced from direct observation of its subject (=no verification). This is a shame, since a lot of work has apparently gone into it. But an encyclopedia should provide an external overview, not an obsessive list of detail for insiders. Cheers, Sam Clark 11:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
What guidelines of policies are you going by? Link to them. (Justyn 15:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
WP:V, especially as expanded by WP:RS and (not a policy, but a useful commentary) WP:INDY; WP:NOT, especially 'WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information'. The last, incidentally, is not a complete list of kinds of information which count as 'indiscriminate': it's making the point that not all information belongs in WP, i.e. that there are boundaries set by the task of writing an encyclopedia rather than doing something else. I'm also going by my judgement as an editor, as you are and anyone else might. This isn't a court of law, it's a discussion. Cheers, Sam Clark 15:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I already went over this, but if I need to again:
  • WP:V does not discuss fictional sources, at all.


Wikipedia:Independent sources is the oppinion of some Wikipedians; not all of us.

Indiscriminate's Wiktionary definition is: "without care or making distinctions, thoughtless". I believe that there is distiction of what goes in here, I.E. not indiscriminate. (Justyn 22:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

Sure, you already 'went over this', but you didn't address the concerns raised. Again: this is not a court of law. No-one needs to cite precedent or statute. What we need to do is give reasons for a judgement about whether this belongs in the encyclopedia or not. Of course WP:INDY is an opinion essay - I said so above - but that doesn't mean it can be discounted as a reason. 'WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information' very obviously does not entail that any article with an inclusion policy is automatically encyclopedic: 'indiscriminate collection' refers to WP as a whole, not to particular articles. As I've already said, there are boundaries set by the task of writing an encyclopedia. Those boundaries are fuzzy, and identifying which side of them a particular article lies isn't automatic or easy. Insisting on reading guidelines as if they were statute law, and insisting on the letter rather than the spirit, doesn't help with that task. Sam Clark 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I was reading the spirit behind them, and Like I said; exept for small tidbits here and there, there is little informations reguarding (?) Fictional infromation, I think that it's time to have all of the information dealing with fictional sources in one location, and expand that information.
And I did bring this up, I do not believe this to be an indiscriminate collection to information. I'll post more, but I'm out of time. (Justyn 14:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Merge all content away into better places and delete. This discussion scares me. --Masamage 00:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Quoting from the intro paragraph to the list, "Characters are only listed here if they have five or more attacks [which] would take up too much space on their normal page. If a character with named attacks is not here, than the attacks may be found under their article." To me this says that this is a break-out article, designed to relieve pressure on the character and series articles by moving detailed information which is essential to an understanding of the topic out of the main article in order to avoid giving it undue weight. The nom said, "..if a character is important enough to have their own article, then surely the attack can be listed there.." and yet I see that most of the characters do have their own articles, and listing all of their attacks in those articles would be giving the attacks undue weight. Therefore this list is referenced by statements such as, "See Attack List for detailed descriptions of Luffy's attacks." Darkfred suggested "...at least rename to One Piece/Attacks so that it is obviously a sub-page," which I think is a good idea. I find a lot of statements to the effect that, this information "couldn't possibly be of interest to non-fans." Yet I disagree. When I am talking to someone, and they mention a tv show I don't know anything about, Wikipedia is usually one of the first places I go to find out what the heck they are talking about. There are situations where someone who's never heard of One Piece before would want or need to know what the Eight Flower Clutch is. I would think, however, that attacks that are "only used once in a single episode," should not be included on this list. However, the fact that a group of editors has recently gotten together to work on improving the quality of the One Piece articles is a good sign. If we give them time to work, before too long this list won't include the one-off attacks. Look at the changes that have been wrought in this article just since it was nominated for deletion (diff showing differences between version that was nominated, and current version as of my comment)! The only real problem I can see with this list is the fact that there are absolutely no sources listed at all, and I'm not sure there ever will be (except the show itself). Other than that, however, I see no grounds for deletion of this article. (P.S. Today is the first time I'd ever heard of One Piece) ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :D! And the reason for keeping the once used attacks is simple; someone might want to look them up too. (Justyn 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

It looks like this piece of fancruft is going to be deleted! Great, I was hoping for that! Unfortunately, Wikipedia is still infested by other attack lists. Once this ordeal is over, let's move onto the others. I'm not sure if I can delete articles (I just created this account), so can others do it for me? The articles I've found are Ninjutsu (Naruto), List of genjutsu in Naruto, List of taijutsu in Naruto, Fūin jutsu (NOTE: Sheesh, Naruto alone has eight pages just for attacks o_0), Demon arts. Hydromasta231 23:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Fancruft is not a reason for deletion, and I have proven that this is not fancruft anyway, so I want an apolgy for calling the page that. There is also no CONCENSUS for the deletion, meaning that it cannot be deleted. And I will now strike all of the people who said "delete" because they thought that it was fancruft and never gave a good reason. When they post a goddamn good reason for deletion that I already did not nuke (with a DON!) they can un-strike the post. Oh yeah, I broke the page up to make it easyer to read.(Justyn 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC))
I've unstruck the votes. DO NOT edit other users' votes! Zetawoof(ζ) 02:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree, or at least almost agree, with you on the counts of all of those articles you mentioned. This is somewhat like having a list of all possible effects Talisman cards can have, or having a list of all ways you can move or command a unit in Civilization. I have extensively studied both of those, but wouldn't dream of writing a Wikipedia article about them. JIP | Talk 22:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is not a fan guide, the information that is listed is veridic, if you want to confirm that, then just read the manga and/or watch the series. --200.56.148.89 11:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Referring the reader back to the original to "confirm" the article's information isn't valid - Wikipedia is neither a primary nor a secondary source. One might just as well tell the readers of a physics article to perform experiments if they want to verify the results, rather than citing research. Zetawoof(ζ) 12:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I added comments throughout, I hate to resort to the Pokemon Test though. (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Suggestion: It won't matter to anyone when this fancruft is deleted from WP (as I have warmly recommended above): its authors can quickly turn it into one or more articles (maybe dozens of articles!) suitable either for one of a large pile of existing Wikia wikis or for a new Wikia wiki for fans of this particular kind of thing. -- Hoary 04:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Why do you people not listen when I proove that this not Fancruft, not to mention the fact that: FANCRUFT IS NOT A REASON FOR DELETION! (Justyn 05:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC))
      • I can't speak for people other than myself, but I'd regard a "proof" that this list is not fancruft rather like a "proof" that apples don't come from trees. Also, I'm deterred from looking for the "proof" by the bulk and repetitiveness of what's above. Since WP is not an indiscriminate collection of plot summaries, it's hard to believe that it's an indiscriminate collection of story elements. Meanwhile, what's wrong with Wikia as your repository for this kind of thing? -- Hoary 05:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

First: It's repetitive because the delete-supporters kept saying the same thing, I had to post the same evidence over and over again.

Second: How often do you go to Wikia? The only Wikia reguarding One Piece is completely dub oriented, is years behind, is pretty dead, and the last time I checked, it was closed.

Third: There is nothing indiscriminate about this, and as ONUnicorn said:

"When I am talking to someone, and they mention a tv show I don't know anything about, Wikipedia is usually one of the first places I go to find out what the heck they are talking about."

When you don't find something on Wikipedia, is the first thought that goes through your head "I'll check Wikia"? Plus, you said yourself: "it's hard to believe that it's an indiscriminate collection of story elements"

Fourth: FANCRUFT IS NOT A REASON FOR DELETION! How many times does this need to be said in order for people to get it through their heads? (Justyn 06:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC))

  • If people repeat the same foolish (in your opinion) objection, write a single refutation of that objection, improve it, and link to or point to it clearly. No, I don't go to Wikia; and this is simply because my interests are pretty much catered for by WP and one other wiki (Camerapedia). The people who contribute to and read the latter don't delude themselves that their interests are shared by many in the world at large or even touch upon widely held interests, and I think most would be quite happy if their articles were described as camerafancruft. WP articles on more general aspects of some manga, game, kind of camera or whatever can easily be, and commonly are, supplemented with external links. These external links can point to other wikis. Lastly, the idea that fancruft is not a reason for deletion only has to be said a single time, persuasively, and without typographic SHOUTING in order to get into people's heads. It has already got into my head. I know full well that there is no fixed policy that fancruft isn't a reason for deletion (if it were, thousands of articles would go); I also know about guidelines, and I know that WP:NOT -- but I shan't repeat myself. -- Hoary 07:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, the reason that I SHOUTED, was that people kept saying "Delete it, it's fancruft" so many times, I snapped. And WP:NOT says: "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series." This aritical can be called in some way, a plot summary. More accurately, a combined summery of a series of small parts of the plot, but a plot summery none the less. (Justyn 07:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment: This AfD is now three weeks old and 52 kilobytes long. Isn't it time it was closed already? JIP | Talk 09:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Once all arguements are in. (Justyn 10:52, 8 October 2006 (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.