Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Society
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 Merge, although the destination does appear to be disputed. Given that the concensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hueco Mundo to Bleach (manga)#Setting, this is where I'll point the templates. — Coren (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Soul Society
Fails WP:FICTION and complete WP:PLOT and WP:OR. Extremely excessive detail about a fictional place in the Bleach anime and manga series. Maybe transwiki to Wikia:Bleach, but fails all guidelines for being on Wikipedia. Collectonian (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into a single article (List of Bleach locations) with all other locations. --Hanaichi 04:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge onto Bleach Page, not start a new Bleach locations page unless real-world notability for such a topic can be established.Epthorn (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Needs cleanup, but not insurmountable. If more detail could be given on Hanaichi's idea, it may be appropriate, but I don't know what those locations to merge would be. If anything, it should be a redirect, not a delete, as I could certainly imagine people searching on this term, and the term is (currently) only appropriate to the Bleach universe. -Verdatum (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into Bleach (manga). If sources can be found to demonstrate notability, then the article can be recreated. While I'm leaning towards the perception that comments on the setting could be found in English media, given that anime and manga have reached that part of the storyline, I'll await their actual inclusion. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Question Why is AfD becoming the new first step in merge discussions? These noms are smelling awfully similarly to gaming the system. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Obvious Keep It does need cleanup, but I really don't see how this article could be merged and it does discuss a topic that is necessary to understanding Bleach. Besides, there are concerns addressed about this nominator here brought up by Ynhockey.Sasuke9031 (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)- So now you're deciding based on me following the recommended method of dealing with issues and NOT answer a flame baiting message left by a user on my talk page (which is also WELL within my rights?). That isn't an obvious keep, more like trying to make a WP:POINT and your personal dislike of the nominator. Collectonian (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- like the nomination itself isn't any better? And isn't it odd that you happen to spring up after the whole Pilotbob issue? I could be wrong, but I'm suspecting sock/meatpuppetry. Sasuke9031 (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Spring up? Excuse me? I've been on Wikipedia for over two years and despite your frequent unfounded accusations and innuendos, I am not anyone's sock puppet or meat puppet. Never even heard of Pilotbob. The nomination was made per Wikipedia notability policies. Soul Society does NOT meet the WP:FICT and the article is pure WP:PLOT and probable WP:OR. A cleaned up, shorter version could be seen as appropriate as the intro to List of Bleach shinigami or to the Soul Society section in List of Bleach characters. This article, as is, is fancruft and unencyclopedic. Transwiki to the Bleach wiki and let Wikipedia be the verifable, notable encyclopedia is it supposed to be. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep it, and so far that's the main reason given in almost all keep responses to many recent character and location AfDs. Collectonian (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- May I ask you to read the other reasons I gave out for the keep vote? I explicitly said that I didn't see how this topic could be merged. If User:Hanaichi went into a little more detail about her merge proposal I might feel differently, but as of now I do not see how anything of this scope could possibly be merged. My advice is to clean up any and all OR and find some third party references. Seeing as how we are on that arc currently in the English version AND there are more than enough competent internet translators that could translate romanji into English, I do not see how we couldn't save this article. Furthermore, cleanup is the first step you should take. If that does not work, discuss merging the article and if THAT does not work, THEN bring it to AfD. Deletion is supposed to be a LAST RESORT, not a first option. Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- What reason did you give except saying you have "concerns" about the nominator and that you think its fine the way it is. It is NOT the job of other editors to prove the notability of a topic. That should be done as soon as the article is created, not "eh, we'll get around to it one day, but gotta keep it because I love Bleach and this is super important to the show." No one has yet to give any real-world evidence to counter the points in the nomination nor adequately shown why it can not be properly fitting in one of the larger more notable articles, such as the two ways I suggested. You may "not see how" it can be done, but it has been done nicely on other articles about anime/manga series with multiple species/major groups and it not only improves the articles, but also meets the WP:FICT requirements. Collectonian (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- So what? I still think that you should have tried to use all other options before you took it to AfD. That just makes you look like a sockpuppet, which after looking at your userpage, I get that you are not, so sorry about that accusation, but still it should have been tagged first. The Bleach taskforce is one of the more active ones around. They could have found stuff. Consideration for next time, perhaps? Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Let's see...the same "active" task force that let such articles be created? Like they could be trusted to do such a thing. The fact that there are tasks force for a single show would seem to point to a much bigger issue in the whole Anime/Manga project and its support of unnotable articles that blatantly go against multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies. And, I see you again ignored the real issue and the request for some support. You've said keep because its "obviously notable" yet you have not provided a single reliable source that actually supports that claim. "they could have found stuff" is NOT acceptable. Notability should have been established the moment it was decided that this topic could not be covered in the main Bleach article or in the character article. Despite this article being TWO years old, notability STILL hasn't been established. Sorry, but they had plenty of time and never bothered. If its so important to the Bleach universe, shouldn't it have been one of the very first articles fixed. Collectonian (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really think you are saying anything short of I don't like this. How many times have I had to say this? Let it be worked on if you tag it, and stop disrupting Wikipedia just to make a point. Sasuke9031 (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not "disrupting" Wikipedia to make a point. I'm working on cleaning up and improving articles, same as anyone else. And, FYI, I do like Bleach and enjoy watching it. I'm rather ticked at Cartoon Network for taking it out of the weekday Adult Swim rotation this week and putting in one of their self made things. However, I know how to put aside my personal feelings about a topic to actually comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Collectonian (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I do not believe Collectonian is just trying to make a point. He and others believe the article fails to demonstrate notability according to WP:FICT and that the bulk of the article is WP:PLOT and/or WP:OR, and he believes the article is not and will not be able to show notability, and without the plot and original research, the article has little potential to expand beyond the definition of the term. That is a reasonable grounds for deletion, and wholly separate from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It sounds like some wikistress is starting to rise, perhaps we should all have a nice cup of tea. -Verdatum (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wake up, people. You must wake up. Wikipedia has obviously grown beyond what it's original aims were. Therefore, we must adapt to this situation. Deletion is not the answer, adaptation is. I don't know why everyone is so hung up on old policies that serve to hinder this project. WP:IAR exists for a reason, and that reason is that if we do not adapt to the ongoing demands of our project, then we doom it to failure. Do you really want to see Wikipedia go down the tubes because of a few deletionists that have not bothered to read into what they are trying to delete? Sasuke9031 (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- WP:IAR is not a blanket reason to ignore what Wikipedia is: an encyclopedia. On the contrary, it stresses that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and you should only ignore rules in order to improve the encyclopedia. The reason we have WP:N (and all of its related guidelines) is to maintain that image of an encyclopedia, which stresses that topics must be significant in the real world as a result. Collectonian has brought a valid point (none of that WP:POINT intended) concerning the notability of the article, and if you believe that it should be kept, then state your argument as to why without resorting to ad hominem arguments that have no place in discussion here. If you wish to refute his argument, then provide sources that indicate notability, and I am sure that he will gladly concede the point. Attacking him and acting as if there exists a conspiracy is not only unfounded, but gives the impression of bad faith in his actions, which is certainly not necessary or warranted. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, there's no call to bash Collectonian (btw "he" is a she - not that it matters for our purposes here) for simply asking that existing policies be enforced. Take a look at the Trinity Blood page, she's done good work there practicing what she preaches. In addition, if transwikied none of this stuff would truly be deleted. Xymmax (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- WP:IAR is not a blanket reason to ignore what Wikipedia is: an encyclopedia. On the contrary, it stresses that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and you should only ignore rules in order to improve the encyclopedia. The reason we have WP:N (and all of its related guidelines) is to maintain that image of an encyclopedia, which stresses that topics must be significant in the real world as a result. Collectonian has brought a valid point (none of that WP:POINT intended) concerning the notability of the article, and if you believe that it should be kept, then state your argument as to why without resorting to ad hominem arguments that have no place in discussion here. If you wish to refute his argument, then provide sources that indicate notability, and I am sure that he will gladly concede the point. Attacking him and acting as if there exists a conspiracy is not only unfounded, but gives the impression of bad faith in his actions, which is certainly not necessary or warranted. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wake up, people. You must wake up. Wikipedia has obviously grown beyond what it's original aims were. Therefore, we must adapt to this situation. Deletion is not the answer, adaptation is. I don't know why everyone is so hung up on old policies that serve to hinder this project. WP:IAR exists for a reason, and that reason is that if we do not adapt to the ongoing demands of our project, then we doom it to failure. Do you really want to see Wikipedia go down the tubes because of a few deletionists that have not bothered to read into what they are trying to delete? Sasuke9031 (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really think you are saying anything short of I don't like this. How many times have I had to say this? Let it be worked on if you tag it, and stop disrupting Wikipedia just to make a point. Sasuke9031 (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Let's see...the same "active" task force that let such articles be created? Like they could be trusted to do such a thing. The fact that there are tasks force for a single show would seem to point to a much bigger issue in the whole Anime/Manga project and its support of unnotable articles that blatantly go against multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies. And, I see you again ignored the real issue and the request for some support. You've said keep because its "obviously notable" yet you have not provided a single reliable source that actually supports that claim. "they could have found stuff" is NOT acceptable. Notability should have been established the moment it was decided that this topic could not be covered in the main Bleach article or in the character article. Despite this article being TWO years old, notability STILL hasn't been established. Sorry, but they had plenty of time and never bothered. If its so important to the Bleach universe, shouldn't it have been one of the very first articles fixed. Collectonian (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- So what? I still think that you should have tried to use all other options before you took it to AfD. That just makes you look like a sockpuppet, which after looking at your userpage, I get that you are not, so sorry about that accusation, but still it should have been tagged first. The Bleach taskforce is one of the more active ones around. They could have found stuff. Consideration for next time, perhaps? Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- What reason did you give except saying you have "concerns" about the nominator and that you think its fine the way it is. It is NOT the job of other editors to prove the notability of a topic. That should be done as soon as the article is created, not "eh, we'll get around to it one day, but gotta keep it because I love Bleach and this is super important to the show." No one has yet to give any real-world evidence to counter the points in the nomination nor adequately shown why it can not be properly fitting in one of the larger more notable articles, such as the two ways I suggested. You may "not see how" it can be done, but it has been done nicely on other articles about anime/manga series with multiple species/major groups and it not only improves the articles, but also meets the WP:FICT requirements. Collectonian (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- May I ask you to read the other reasons I gave out for the keep vote? I explicitly said that I didn't see how this topic could be merged. If User:Hanaichi went into a little more detail about her merge proposal I might feel differently, but as of now I do not see how anything of this scope could possibly be merged. My advice is to clean up any and all OR and find some third party references. Seeing as how we are on that arc currently in the English version AND there are more than enough competent internet translators that could translate romanji into English, I do not see how we couldn't save this article. Furthermore, cleanup is the first step you should take. If that does not work, discuss merging the article and if THAT does not work, THEN bring it to AfD. Deletion is supposed to be a LAST RESORT, not a first option. Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Spring up? Excuse me? I've been on Wikipedia for over two years and despite your frequent unfounded accusations and innuendos, I am not anyone's sock puppet or meat puppet. Never even heard of Pilotbob. The nomination was made per Wikipedia notability policies. Soul Society does NOT meet the WP:FICT and the article is pure WP:PLOT and probable WP:OR. A cleaned up, shorter version could be seen as appropriate as the intro to List of Bleach shinigami or to the Soul Society section in List of Bleach characters. This article, as is, is fancruft and unencyclopedic. Transwiki to the Bleach wiki and let Wikipedia be the verifable, notable encyclopedia is it supposed to be. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep it, and so far that's the main reason given in almost all keep responses to many recent character and location AfDs. Collectonian (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- like the nomination itself isn't any better? And isn't it odd that you happen to spring up after the whole Pilotbob issue? I could be wrong, but I'm suspecting sock/meatpuppetry. Sasuke9031 (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- So now you're deciding based on me following the recommended method of dealing with issues and NOT answer a flame baiting message left by a user on my talk page (which is also WELL within my rights?). That isn't an obvious keep, more like trying to make a WP:POINT and your personal dislike of the nominator. Collectonian (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or merge Let me say that agree that notability of Soul Society by itself is questionable. However, this is a central part of the Bleach universe, and I can understand it receiving expansive treatment. Given the size of the Bleach article, this article may qualify, per WP:FICT as one of those that is split off from the parent article for size reasons, and whose notability should be evaluated as part of the parent article. I do not see that such discussion took place on the talk page, but it may have been considered. The Bleach Work Group seems to be one of the more active and responsive ones, I would simply tag the article (because as far as I can determine it never has been tagged for notability or anything similiar) and give them a reasonable shot at improvement. Xymmax (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: Agree with Xymmax. --SimpleParadox (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I suggest merging into a single article because it would be an overload of information in the main page. I'm sure there would be other information out there which qualifies the article for WP:N. Collectonian has a good point in which there are lack of secondary sources and real world information, but I'm sure if additional information was found and added; and cited by secondary sources, along with real world information, all three articles in question could be merged into a single article. I kinda envy the location articles which have real world information given by the creator, example being here. --Hanaichi 02:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into List of Bleach locations. Finally, some detail on the proposal. Now I see how it can be merged. That's all you needed to say. Sasuke9031 (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into either Shinigami (Bleach) or Bleach (manga)#Setting. I don't particularly care which. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per Hanaichi's suggestion. If not feasible, merge into the Shinigami (Bleach) article or the Setting section of the main Bleach (manga) article. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 18:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per Hanaichi's suggestion, tag it for notability, then give the Work Group some time to clean it up with sources. Given the popularity of the series and the in-universe importance of this setting, I strongly suspect that references can be found, and those with the expertise should be given a good-faith chance to build a better article. —Quasirandom (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 10:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Damn, that's not a bad article. Don't delete. I can't work my way through the myriad of merge options, but that's where the consensus seems to be going and who am I to disagree. Hiding T 10:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, I'm leaning towards deletion, but perhaps it would be better to transwikify the content to Wikia:Bleach. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- And I'd rather keep with consensus, which says merge. I still want to know why AfD is now the first step in merge discussions Sasuke9031 (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge or Keep Per the above points. --Sharkface217 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Let this page stay. We need this up for more info. Rtkat3 (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge I agree with Xymmax, that this article should be marked as a stub. Maybe some of the Bleach Work Group could be contacted to see if they have anything to add to the article. If not, I would suggest merging into List of Bleach locations. Because of the existence of Hueco Mundo, and because I think some minor locations could be added to the article. Laptopdude (talk) 02:24, 20 December 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.
