Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion | Project tag | Infobox | Magazine Archive | Reference Library | MOS-AM | FAC | GAC | A | Peer reviews | Deletions | Cleanup
Anime and Manga Portal
Shortcuts:
WP:ANIME/D
WP:MANGA/D
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Anime and manga. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page as follows (open the edit box first):

  • add a new AFD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD). Place on this page:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}
Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. New entries go to the top of the list. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • remove a closed AFD from this page by deleting it.
  • remove an AFD from this page, which is not on a relevant subject, by deleting it.

Please note that adding an AFD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

It is also helpful to:

  • tag an AFD, once it is on this page, by adding to it:
{{subst:delsort|Anime and manga}} <small>—~~~~</small>
  • If you wish, you can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Anime and manga}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.
  • This tag will display a note that the AFD has been listed here (in addition to the main AFD page).
Scan for anime AfDs
Scan for manga AfDs
Scan for anime Prods
Scan for manga Prods
Scan for Anime and manga template TfDs

Contents


Deletion Archive   Deletion Archive


[edit] Anime and manga

[edit] L reborn

L reborn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. A google search brought back 4 hits, too few for this to be at all notable. In contesting the PROD I was informed that I had got the name wrong and that I should have searched on the original name, for which I got 28 hits. Still not enough, imo. Roleplayer (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep I feel this should be kept, few results on a single search engine does not mean this deserves deletion. Many things start off small and have few results on search engines, give it time and wait to see what happens is what I say.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonKid666 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The above comment was originally posted at Talk:L reborn and transferred here by Roleplayer (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In that statement of yours there is an admission that this is not notable yet. I suggest deleting now, and if it does become notable in the future, recreate it providing those verifiable references that prove its notability. -- Roleplayer (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Death Note per the redirect text that already exists on the page. L reborn doesn't meet the criteria for its own article so this should be a redirect. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 00:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. I'm not seeing any references for this, and any time a fan favorite is brought back in a contrived manner and it has no references, I'm a little suspicious that it is even real. --Gwern (contribs) 03:00 10 June 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Anime Punch!

Anime Punch! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Student organization, fails WP:ORG. Probably recreation of deleted material, see previous nom; I can't verify that, though. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Note added: With "previous nominations", I was referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animate! OSU and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animate! OSU sub-articles. --B. Wolterding (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Sorry kids, but notability is not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability can be easily be established to some degree, but even more important I believe you shall not use "Notability" as the sole reason for deleting an article. Fan's View, a fairly reliable review source for anime conventions, has even gone and covered anime punch.1. Wish I had time to find more, but seriously this is a horrible AfD suggestion. Kopf1988 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • First, Fan's View seems to be a self-published source [1] and does not confer notability. Second, there is a rather wide consensus that lack of notability is a reason not to have an article about a topic; see the WP:N guideline. Actually, notability is probably the most frequent reason for article deletion on Wikipedia. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes and no, A Fan's View is Lillard's personal website, but he has been regularly published in Newtype USA and later PiQ. As as such, he can be considered an established expert in the field. (WP:V#SELF) --Farix (Talk) 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If anything, the article lacks focus. Most of the article is about the conventions Anime Punch! Armageddicon and Fieldcon. Anime Punch! Armageddicon was even featured in an article in the June 2007 issue of NewType USA. (Lillard, Kevin (June 2007). "Con Report: Anime Punch". Newtype USA 6 (6): 96. ). I'm sure if I did some more digging, I would find other times that NewType USA covered an Anime Punch convention. --Farix (Talk) 00:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 00:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beyblade timeline

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Beyblade timeline
Beyblade timeline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is a timeline revealing a plot for a series, is most fancruft and serves little encyclopedic value to wikipedia Angel Emfrbl (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep I'd say it serves plenty of encyclopedic value to fans of the show and manga. Ford MF (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per other timleline articles - fan-driven content that makes no claims to real-world significance; non-notable & in-universe. Fails our fiction guideline (Please make your voice heard on fiction-related topics!). Eusebeus (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    We don't have a fiction guideline. That's a proposal, and a highly debated one unlikely (if the talkpage is any evidence) to gain consensus. Ford MF (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as it fails WP:FICT, WP:N, and it is mostly OR and original synthesis. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    It's no more original synthesis than any other plot summary. Also, your argument is that "similar articles have been deleted in the past"? Ford MF (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, it is OS. It is not straight plot summary, its synthesis and making guesses. Also, it is rude to just run around and jump on everyone's deletes. Just make your keep and leave it at that. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    See under: wiktionary:debate. Ford MF (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    I presume there was a point there, but as I do like to follow WP:CIVIL, I'll refrain from giving my response. Too bad you have so little confidence in your keep reasons that you have to attack the deletes to try to make it better. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Questioning delete rationales that are iffy or spurious isn't "attacking", it's what is done at AfD. You're not exactly new here. Ford MF (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This isn't a time line, it is simply a series of tables listing "attacks" which fails WP:FICT in any of its incarnations. --Farix (Talk) 01:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't really tell what this article wants to accomplish in the first place. If it was a clearcut fictional timeline, I'd likely !vote delete for failing WP:NOT#PLOT. Now it's just an extreme in-universe mess of statistics (WP:WAF and WP:NOT#STATS). – sgeureka t•c 06:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails notability criteria for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Farix, and because (IMHO) this page looks like little more than an excuse to show off what someone can do with tables. —Dinoguy1000 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miko Mido

Miko Mido (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable anime character that fails WP:FICT. Unlikely search term and there is nothing here worth merging. Disputed prod. --Farix (Talk) 10:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 10:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect Contains nothing of weight that isn't already present in the main article. – sgeureka t•c 12:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to La Blue Girl. JuJube (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge Main character in a manga, anime, game and live action. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We Gotta Power

We Gotta Power (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, unnotable single opening theme. Being a theme song of Dragon Ball Z does not make it notable. Failed PROD. Prod removed for no stated reason. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment WP:MUSIC#C10 only applies to musicians, singers, and bands, but not to individual songs. --Farix (Talk) 16:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Crikey, it does too. How silly of me. Cheers for pointing that out.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cha-La Head-Cha-La

Cha-La Head-Cha-La (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, unnotable single opening theme. Being a theme song of Dragon Ball Z does not make it notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with Hironobu Kageyama. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm honestly not sure of the reasoning here, it seems to be notable as a single. JuJube (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
How so? It has won no awards and it has not placed highly on music charts. Its a typical, unnotable single. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Except that its been 1) covered by another band and 2) parodied in another work (Lucky Star). Surely that counts for something, no? I would think that that would make it a good bit more notable than the other Dragonball singles up for prod/afd. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. WP:MUSIC says songs "that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable" and Aya Hirano and Animetal are notable performers. Maybe more artists have covered the song...--Nohansen (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup - Please accept my apologies I should have looked more indepthly at it. The merge above was because that artist is the one mentioned in big colourful letters down the right hand side. Does the article need all the album covers? I'd say it really only needs one album cover but, that is really an issue for the talkpage not here. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2008
  • Keep - I am surprised to be voting as such on this topic but I'm convinced that this song passes WP:MUSIC and should not be dismissed as Dragon Ball Z fancruft. - House of Scandal (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The song has also been covered by Fred Roettcher for the German DBZ dub, and is available on several CDs like here and here. That I still know major portions of the lyrics although I was never really into anime and suck at lyrics also makes me reluctant to claim that this song is non-notable. A few more sources wouldn't hurt the article, but I'd even be fine with the article in its current form if no more sources exist. – sgeureka t•c 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Um, more sources would imply it had some to begin with, which it does not. :P Redoing the song for a dub is not the same as a cover.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as a theme song of a notable series even if wasn't also available on CDs would at least be valid as a search term and a redirect, although it seems that in the case an article may indeed be warranted, but I don't see any benefit in an outright deletion here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject looks notable enough but we should vigorously remove any material which falls under the umbrella of original research. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:MUSIC, but article needs a clean-up.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 11:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The two pieces of information on the article that will allow this article to pass WP:MUSIC are not cited so that it can be verified, one of which, the Lucky Star parody, seems little ORish to me. Unfortunately, because of this, I can not recommend keeping this article. --Farix (Talk) 16:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment how does this article have more potential than "We Gotta Power"? Due to it being less of a stub? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. As the theme song of a popular series. eUpH0rIa (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Being a theme song is not a reason to keep this article. The song ether needs to pass the general notability criteria, has been ranked on national or significant music charts such as Oricon, has won significant awards or honors, or has been performed independently by several notable artists, bands, or groups. (see WP:MUSIC) --Farix (Talk) 12:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of One Piece locations

List of One Piece locations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:OR, and WP:V. Failed PROD. Prod removed with "get consensus first, please." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fancruft, better suited to the Wikia. Doceirias (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. This should be transwikied if possible. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no real-world notability established. Huon (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and transwiki. ~DoubleAW[c] 00:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and immediate closure of AFD; This entire debacle is just a steaming pile of Deletionism, in which I can find no actual reason for deletion beyond the hyper-anal view of improper article structure. The article is sourced with non-cited primary sources (the source material itself, which counts as a primary source within the rules as far as I can tell). And in addition, one of the policies is improperly used in the first place, and one of them isn't even a guideline, and last time I checked, there is no rule against violating something that is not a rule. [[Justyn (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)]]
Note: Justyn was canvassed to come help "save some OP" pages.[2]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
What the hell does how I came to the page have to do with my point? Yes, Angel told me about this because she and I have worked together on One Piece related pages before, and I believe that it is because she and I have worked on these pages before that she gave me that notice.
And I also noticed that rather than even give the least bit of an effort to refute my arguement, you used an ad hominem attack against me, my reason for posting, and manner of arrival upon this page. [[Justyn (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)]]
How you came to it does matter, when you were asked to some argue for its keeping. We do have rules against canvassing to try and sway an AfD. To refute your arguments, there are no grounds for speedy keep with four deletes already logged. Your rather ludicrous demand that the AfD be closed because you don't like "deletionists" is just that, ludicrous, and not a valid argument at all. You have not, in fact, given any evidence or real arguments refuting the AfD reasons nor supporting deletes. You made a false claim of Plot being "improperly used" and a false claim that its being AfDed for having bad structure. And if you want to be "hyper-anal" and try to claim WP:FICT is not a guideline, just go up the line and note it also fails WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
First. I stated that WP:OR and WP:V are invalid here; the page uses the source material, which you yourself said is fine to use.
Second, I did not say that the page should not be deleted because of deletionism. I said that the page should not be deleted, and that there is deletionism involved (splitting hairs, but still). I should have worded this better.
Third, WP:FICT is not a guideline, it is a proposed guideline; while WP:N is a policy, and I never claimed any less.
Fourth, Angel told me about something that I would get involved in if I had just stumbled upon it. Justyn (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I really hate being misquoted. The entire conversation notes that plot summaries (as in the plot section of a series article) and episode/chapters summaries are not OR and do not need to be sourced. Character lists, and things like this do need to be sourced, either to the primary or to third-party sources. WP:V is not invalid here. It clearly states if there is NO third-party coverage (from reliable sources, of course, not a fansite) of a topic, it should not have an article. WP:OR in that the list includes fan guesses and rumors "filling in the blanks" of what is not stated in the series and interpreting events in teh series to reach conclusions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops. I guess I misread what you were talking about. And to be honest, I really dislike all the speculations myself. Justyn (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as a unified list and a reasonable way of presenting the material, assuming the basic work is important, which I cannot judge. DGG (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Dan Kokoro Hikareteku

Dan Dan Kokoro Hikareteku (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, unnotable song. Notability of the anime series it is used as an ending theme for is not inherited. Failed PROD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Field of View. A redirect to the group or other appropriate target is the normal dispostion for songs under WP:MUSIC, and it seems likely to me that a reasonable number of those searching for this song will be doing so after discovering the anime, so mention of it is appropriate in the band's article. Actually, if this weren't at AfD I'd do a merge/redirect now. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Field of View, song fails WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - it does not fail WP:MUSIC, because it has been performed by at least 2 notable artists, namely, Field of View and the more popular Zard. Also, it appears that the nominator has not done her research - the song is used as an opening theme, not an ending theme, for one of the most popular anime series worldwide of all time - Dragon Ball (GT). This further solidifies its notability. In addition, the song has been translated to many languages; I can't give a precise figure, but I'd guess at least 20 languages. The song was also released as a single by Field of View. Moreover, even if it somehow failed WP:MUSIC, WP:MUSIC is non-binding and common sense overrides it. I think the above points are enough to assert its notability. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 08:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Another thing - this is one of those cases where the song is much more notable than the artist, so if anything, merging it into the artist's article would be a strange course of action. And by the way, although these are not indications of notability, there are 2 more arguments: one, the search "Dan dan kokoro" produced almost 30,000 hits on Google, and two, other Dragon Ball opening themes have articles which aren't being AfD'd by Collectonian, like Cha-La Head-Cha-La and We Gotta Power -- Ynhockey (Talk) 08:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: I have notified 2 users who contributed to this article of the debate - Collectonian also notified the user Hatto, thinking he created the article (although he did not).Ynhockey (Talk) 08:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
A few notes. I didn't notice, Twinkle did. That's who it read as the article creator. For the other Dragon Ball openings, I hadn't gotten to them yet as I'm on clean of GT first. Tackling the entire Dragon Ball series at once would be insane. However, since you pointed them out, I will AfD them since I am guessing by your noting them you will deprod them as you did this one (and interesting you didn't note the two other Dragon Ball themes for the series that I did put up for deletion)? Finally, it does fail WP:MUSIC. The series is a theme (and it was used as the ending for the last episode, so only partially wrong). There is no notability. 30,000 come download a copyright infringing copy of the song, or here are copyrighted lyrics, and here are a bunch of unreliable sources is not a sign of notability. Xymmax, now you see why I did the AfD route :-P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh, you got me there :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • (EC) Comment: Is the song really more popular than the group? This is an honest question, I don't know the answer. I can't find any evidence that the song charted or anything, although my Japanese is weak. If it has, obviously a better case could be made for its notability. I also considered that the song had been covered by Zard (if covered is the right term since she wrote it). In the end, I just wasn't convinced that the two recording alone made it notable, especially since the second one was by the song's author. I considered the merge targets quite a bit, as Zard certainly is far more popular. In the end I suggested Field of View because they first recorded the song. I wouldn't really have any heartburn with merging to Zard, but perhaps Izumi Sakai would be even better, since she wrote the song in her individual capacity separate from her band. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
What about the fact that it was translated into many languages? This is an important notability gauge for novels, so why not songs? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Nothing in WP:MUSIC gives it such an exception, and really I can't see why that would. Songs are short, so they are often translated into other languages (unlike novels). Fans translate nearly every song from anime series all the time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure where you see in Wikipedia:Notability (books) that novels that have been translated in several languages are presumed to be notable. But clearly, translation is not a factor in a songs notability. --Farix (Talk) 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to Field of View. The song clearly fails WP:MUSIC. And from my understanding, it has to be performed independently by several notable artists, bands, or groups before it can be presumed notable. The performance by Zard is neither independent nor does it constitute several. --Farix (Talk) 17:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One Piece side comics

One Piece side comics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FICT and WP:N completely. List of the side stories from included in the One Piece manga volumes, which are not notable and not anything generally mentioned within anime/manga articles unless they are relevant to he work itself. Failed PROD removed by an IP with no reason given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - possibly merge some of it to List of One Piece chapters, but probably largely just not notable. Doceirias (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Merge to List of One Piece chapters mentions of each side story into the list of chapters for the volume it's in. (Assuming you can parse that -- sleep deprevation does bad things to my clarity.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Merge with List of One Piece chapters, and/or List of One Piece episodes for the side stories that have been animated. {{Justyn (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)}}
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chianti (Case Closed)

Chianti (Case Closed) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

As an editor in the Case Closed series, I don't consider this character having any off-universe notability in the foreseeable future. A short summary of this character already exists at List of Case Closed characters. Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I also nominate two similar articles for deletion due to the same reason:

Korn (Case Closed) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Tequila (Case Closed) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Case Closed characters per the growing concensus that lists are the best way to handle individually non-notable members of a notable set. Not to mention per the recommendation of WP:FICT. (Yeah, most of the info is already there -- it still should be a merge instead of outright delete.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand it's probably a merger, but since there would be information loss (I plan not to add anything to the list), it'd be prudent to raise an AfD.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per Quasirandom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of Case Closed characters, or delete. If the nom thinks the characters will be removed from the list anyway for WP:UNDUE, then they can also be deleted at AfD. Insufficient notability for their own articles is pretty much established already. – sgeureka t•c 13:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of One Piece episodes (US TV broadcast edition)

List of One Piece episodes (US TV broadcast edition) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unnecessary and NPOV split out from the List of One Piece episodes; goes against the anime and manga MoS and unnecessary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Do what you gotta do. I created (split off) this article because two lists, one with over 300 eps and the other around 100 weren't fitting nicely on one page. If there's a MOS that says get rid of it, that's fine with me. Do whatever the current consensus supports but keep in mind the ridiculous number of episodes and how best to format the information. The current rules may not work well with lists this long. May need some sort of WP:IAR here, although what I don't know. Collectionian: what do the relevant MOS's specify? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 04:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Cleaned up, the main episode list (which is crazy at over 300), should be split up similar to List of Naruto episodes, but first the arc issue has to be dealt with (are the official and sourcable, or fan creations? the story arc page sources out to a wikia). Once clean lines of splitting are decided, then it can be broken up into an appropriately shorter number of lists, with the main episode list losing the summaries and just having titles, while the sublists have the summaries and appropriate leads. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Following the Naruto example is a good idea. You could just redirect and save a whole AfD although maybe there are some people who feel strongly about this article, I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 04:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Anything involving edit version does seem to get a bunch of passionate voices involved. Especially since the episodes appear to be being rereleased in an unedited version, the information on the edited version is best reduced to a footnote somewhere. Delete Doceirias (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge non-duplicated info I can see tons of redundant information, like this vs this, where only the airing date changes for the first few arcs. Notice that the US airing date can be included on the main article on the "Episode list" templates using the "AltDate" parameter: "The next notable air date, such as the first air date of an anime in English.". In other words, this can and should be solved by normal editing, formatting and partitioning on the main episode, since this split is duplicating too much stuff. It ought to be easy to make a section listing on what order the story arcs were released on the US, so no reasons for split. If an article is different on the US and the japanese version, it can be detailed on the episode summary or on a US-specific section if it's a mojar change on several chapters --Enric Naval (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Minor quible: Actually it would be the EnglishAirDate field, not AltDate. The Japanese ep template has a param just for that. :P And agreed on the differences. If the differences between Tokyo Mew Mew and 4Kids version Mew Mew Power can be summed up in the main article and cleanly covered in the episode list, so to can this series.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Tokyo Mew Mew and Mew Mew Power may be somewhat different, but in terms of story and episode count, they're pretty much the same show. One Piece has story changes, not to mention 39 episodes worth of content was cut, including skipped episodes, merged episodes, what have you. For more information, check out [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matty-chan (talk • contribs) 14:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What the...fill in your own word...that's not worse than a "monster of the day list." Blech...lots of One Piece clean up to go yet I see...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This guide would be useful for people who only watch the dub. I know some guides merged the English and Japanese guides, but those animes have dubs that are closer to the original in terms of story and episode count, so they can be explained more simply in one article. The One Piece dub has cut and merged 39 episodes worth of content out of the show, where three Japanese episodes make up one English episode and half of a Japanese episode can be used as part of an English episode and the other half is half of another English episode... to see what I mean, check out [4]. We can't merge this. As well, another useful thing would be... like I said, story changes. In the original, Arlong shot Bellemere, but in the dub, he sent her to the dungeon. In the original, Luffy used his own blood to defeat Crocodile whereas in the dub he used his own sweat. Also, there's terminology changes. Now the dub fans can have a guide where a character in the original who was referred to as Zoro is now referred to as Zolo so they know what they're reading, since he's Zolo in the edited dub. Matty-chan (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If the list is kept, it needs to be renamed so that it doesn't violate WP:BIAS, and Funimation's episode list needs to be merged in with List of One Piece episodes, since FUNi is releasing episodes sans editing, and notes (properly sourced, of course) should be added indicating what Japanese episodes were used for each of 4Kids' episodes. Needless to say, though, I still think they could be merged in their entirety if 4Kids' episodes are handled correctly. —Dinoguy1000 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Other series have been hacked by 4Kids, its their specialty. There is a reason there is a rather intense hatred for the company among anime fans :P That said, it is entirely possible to cover the series in a single episode list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Matty-chan, we don't really need to list in detail all the changes, that's what people means by cruft. Make a section detailing all significant changes, like you did here. Irrelevant details should be outsourced to anime wikis --Enric Naval (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Look, I have nothing against 4Kids Entertainment or their One Piece dub, but I'm just thinking of the people who ONLY watch the dub. This guide is for them. I really don't see how we can write that three Japanese episodes make up one English episode and whatnot on a site like this. Matty-chan (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
            • We do not do a detailed break down of every last comparision between an edited dub and the original. We let people know it was done and give some general overviews of what. We are, in fact, not a guide for the people who have seen the dub or anything else. We're an encyclopedia. For the detailed breakdown, i.e. "for more information," its up to those people to decide they want to know exactly how it was edited and go find that information. We provide an overview, not the deep down nitty gritty. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
              • To put it in on other words: since this is an encyclopedia, the fact that the chapters were botched is a remarkable encyclopaedic fact, however, the fact that japanese episodes x,y and z were merged into episode n is not, unless there is something remarkable about that merge, like some controversy on why that specific merge was done while others weren't. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant information. We're also not platform on which anime fans can grind their axes against whichever localization company they hate this week. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge - the variant in not notable on it's own --T-rex 03:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anime and manga categories, templates, and misc

no categories, templates, or misc listed for deletion at this time

[edit] Proposed deletions