Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of InuYasha

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 delete and redirect to InuYasha as there is nothing mergeable. --Coredesat 02:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot of InuYasha

Plot of InuYasha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries, per WP:NOT#IINFO. The main article contains an adequate plot summary. --Eyrian 19:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Point 7 is about plot summaries. For everyone else, "IINFO" is an obsolete shortcut now, and should be avoided as it is misleading. –Pomte 03:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT#IINFO takes one directly to the appropriate section of WP:NOT. And yes, Zeno, it's a good bet that the other similar "plot of" pages are also violations, and indeed they are being nominated and several have been deleted. Otto4711 04:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There are a great many articles on InuYasha and it is a very very long series. There is no way that the summary in the main article can begin to do the series justice. This article is needed. If you think that it is sub-standard then be bold and improve it. But destroying the work of many people who built this article is counter-productive. JRSpriggs 08:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • A page is not 'needed' if it goes against the policies of the encycloedia. As for 'destroying the work', well perhaps you should read the note at the bottom of the page EVERY time you make an edit. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge - Articles like this clearly shouldn't exist in the first place. If there is good (and sourced) material not found elsewhere, it could be trimmed and merged with a main InuYasha article. And from a skimming of some paragraphs, it sounds almost like original research of someone's analysis. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There are many other similar articles, why should this one be deleted? It does a good job at describing the plot of the series. If it seems redundant, why not remove most of the content on the main page regarding plot and provide a link? Articles like these should be kept out of the main article for the most part, a link will do. The anime is over and the manga is continuing, I wouldn't call a plot article "recaps", the plot is very important to the main InuYasha article, as it has a very long and complex story. We need to keep this article, if it gets deleted, the quality of the main article will drop for sure. If we delete this, then why not all plot articles? While we're at it, why don't we just delete articles on countries' histories and merge them into the main articles? It's madness. Also, if this article does happen to get deleted and replaced with the List of InuYasha episodes article, it will need someone serious improvements. The Plot of InuYasha article is fine, but the List of InuYasha episodes article is sorely lacking in material (and screencaps). --Mathew Williams 12:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds like you ought to read WP:ATA. Your comment falls into at least two of those. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Articles on the plots of fiction are not comparable to articles on the history of actual existing nations. The notion that deleting a plot summary would implicate the existence of articles on actual real-world history is ludicrous. Otto4711 12:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And screencaps are generally not copyright free, and they need to be removed before reaching featured list status, meaning less screencaps is good. And you'll hear this time and time again. Just because the pages exist, doesn't mean they're not again wikipedia policy. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per JRSpriggs and 88wolfmaster - Ranma9617 04:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Completely unnecessary to Wikipedia. --Potato dude42 04:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Merging is impossible as I explained, the manga in existance covers more than ANY article other than this one could support - it goes beyond the anime and the US releases.--88wolfmaster 02:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it could be merged. --Eyrian 02:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it could not be merged. --EAZen 05:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The (perhaps too subtle) point of my edit was to show that the content most certainly could be contained in a short section. Yes, details will be left out. But anything other than original source requires that details be left out. A plot summary that is too long not only exposes us to risks of copyright violation (people have stated that they use these summaries instead of watching), but it is fundamentally against the purpose of Wikipedia, which is about the real world. Fictional worlds impact real ones, but those impacts must be cited. This article has too few. --Eyrian 03:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This isn't an AfD issue; what you state is an extension on policy that would remove extending plot summaries: books, episodes, radio shows, movies et c. If you feel current guidelines already exist for this, then you have a lot of AfD's to put out there. That goddam Stargate/Harry Potter/IP as Physical Property isn't going to delete itself. Unless, what you meant was the lack of sources; I believe that's a different tag. --EAZen 06:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:WAF states that plot summaries should be brief. Just because other articles would need to be deleted as well doesn't mean this one shouldn't be (please read WP:ATA). And the problem isn't lack of sources; it's unsourceability. A plot summary article can never be more than plot summary, which is unacceptable under Wikipedia policy(WP:NOT). This article will never be cited (to a secondary source) because there's nothing to cite it to. --Eyrian 04:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Only portions of this article are redunant in the main article summary, and the anime cuts off too early to be a useful source of summaries. Furthermore the collected Manga summaries are, due to chapter releases, behind the continuously appended version of this article. This article does not out-live its usefulness until the Manga ends (which is at least another year from now) and the chapters are finally completed and available. --EAZen 05:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - what everyone seems to be forgetting when citing WP:NOT is that "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic". Inuyasha is a larger topic, thus this does not violate that guideline. Now, it does certainly need to be rewritten, as it is confusingly worded/structured and close to copyright violation in places, but its very existence is not wrong. As for the list of anime episodes, or a paragraph or two being acceptable - even though I'm not a fan, I can recognize that the thing is basically a soap opera. Even if you trimmed and summarized as much as possible, you're still going to end up with something that is ridiculously long - it would take up more than 50% of the entire page about Inuyasha. Furthermore, the anime stops covering the story quite early on. KrytenKoro 05:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Right. PART of a larger topic, which means not as its own article. That's why this page breaks the rule. How much of it all is importent to the overall arc of the entire story, that can't be covered in other places (character articles, etc)? I don't know Inuyasha, but I DO know Takahashi's other popular manga, Ranma. And in Ranma, the answer is really very little. The series is pretty much all self-contained, with very little actual progression once one gets past about volume five or so. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have not read Ranma 1/2, but I can assure you that most of the information in InuYasha is important to the overall story. The story progresses quite a bit throughout when it comes to the characters, abilities, etc. The story is very long and complex, and if the plot article is improved enough, it will help the reader understand the story. --Mathew Williams 04:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The problem with this article is there is NO other place for the entire series to go. I am not saying that the article does not need work, but honestly where could you add major plot developments from the latest chapters written (there aren't any more episodes and Viz can only translate manga so quickly). as to importance, the anime just ends without a resolution so fans have to turn to the manga to get that resolution. and in regards to people just reading the summary and not buying the graphic novels, you can't stop them from doing so any more than you can stop free scans on the web - where there is a will there is a way--88wolfmaster 06:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Farix. -- Jelly Soup 08:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Since "Wikipedia articles on published works should contain [...] not solely a summary of that work's plot," which is exactly what this article contains: solely a summary. Also delete per my personal believe that if reading a Wikipedia article on any fictional work serves as an alternative to actually reading or watching said work, then the article must be trimmed. (or in this case, deleted)--Nohansen 11:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Alot of these votes on both sides of the argument look like WP:JUSTAVOTE to me. Votes without a valid arguement should be ignored in my opinion. I don't mean that we should decide which arguements should be counted and which ones shouldn't. But a vote that only includes a message like "per (insert name here)" or an extremely short comment should not count. --Mathew Williams 01:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Echoing another's sentiments can be a way of indicating that you agree with their logic and that it is a valid claim to make. It can add weight to the argument if others think it is convincing. --Eyrian 01:29, 28 June 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.