Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.81.95.231 (talk) at 04:20, 27 July 2008 (→Proposed deletions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
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. When doing so, list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Deletion Archive by adding on that page:
- {{afdl|article title|deletion debate link|debate start date (ISO format)|debate end date (ISO format)}}
- 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).
![]() |
{{{linktext}}}
|
![]() |
{{{linktext}}}
|
![]() |
{{{linktext}}}
|
![]() |
{{{linktext}}}
|
![]() |
{{{linktext}}}
|
- Related deletion sorting
Anime and manga
- 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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Neon Genesis Evangelion voice actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed prod. Information about voice actors and the characters they portray are already incorporated in the character summaries, either on the main article, a list of characters article, or the individual character articles, as directed by WP:MOS-AM#Sections. Because of this, there is no point in keeping a separate "cast list" article and the list does not serve a useful purpose. --Farix (Talk) 16:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If the article overlaps existing information in another article, the information is redundant and unnecessary. Yamakiri TC § 07-25-2008 • 17:18:13 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the person who originally prodded it. Note that it was deprodded because "reasoning does not match contents" (something I can't see myself). —Dinoguy1000 17:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is redundant. Doceirias (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I still see some info that isn't in the character page, like the French, German, and Spanish voice actors, so merge that info.Westrim (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: we typically do not include information on any language dubs or translations aside from Japanese and English; the most mention this information typically gets is within the infobox and maybe a few sentences in the prose. If anything, this information should be transwikied to the appropriate foreign-language Wikipedias. —Dinoguy1000 22:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Dinoguy1000's comment. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Redundant information. List of voice actors (not only main characters or sub-characters) are suitable in some Anime News Network. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom's helpful nomination. French/German/Spanish VA's are immaterial to the English Wikipedia. JuJube (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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. — Scientizzle 16:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Neon Genesis Evangelion topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed prod. List is redundant to the navigational template {{Neon Genesis Evangelion}}. --Farix (Talk) 15:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the person who originally prodded it. Note that it was validly deprodded because it previously survived an AfD (a long long time ago when AfD was still VfD); I didn't check thoroughly enough prior to prodding it; if I had, I'd've taken it to AfD myself. —Dinoguy1000 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Yamakiri TC § 07-25-2008 • 17:31:25 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the template covers the same grounds. Redundant. Doceirias (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others. Unnecessary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Why did someone bother to make this to begin with? (the list, not this AFD)Westrim (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for being redundant to the NGE navigation template. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 22:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete actually yes, delete this like the plague; it's redundant and all that really happens on it is crazed fanboys trying to add in Evangelion fanfic to the list, as if to justify it as "legitimate" ugh.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the old VfD states why it exists, because it predates categories, and existed to link articles together (like the template does now). 70.55.85.122 (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment someone remember to archive the VfD since it's saved on the Talk Page. 70.55.85.122 (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it replicates both the category and the navigation template, as such it's been rendered redundant by the development of the nav-template and the category system. Alternatively, histmerge into the template. 70.55.85.122 (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete certainly redundant to the templates. JuJube (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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 --JForget 23:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Zatch Bell! cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Information about voice actors and the characters they portray are already incorporated in the character summaries, either on the main article or in a list of characters article, as directed by WP:MOS-AM#Sections. Because of this, there is no point in keeping a separate "cast list" article and the list does not serve a useful purpose. --Farix (Talk) 15:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the person who originally prodded it. Note that it was deprodded with a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. —Dinoguy1000 17:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Redundant. Gelmax (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Covered elsewhere, not needed. Doceirias (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article obviously couldn't be contained in the main Zatch Bell! article, and this does have a level of notability amongst teens. Yamakiri TC § 07-25-2008 • 19:00:15 19:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The information in the article is already included in the List of Zatch Bell! characters page as well as the pages for specific characters. That's why it's being put up for deletion, not because of notability concerns. Gelmax (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete regretfully, because I worked hard on it (and was the one who removed the prod), but TheFarix made a valid point, unlike Dinoguy whose "redundant to other article" did not constitute an argument. In any case, prod's should not be placed on article deletions which may prove controversial and it should have been brought here from the start. JuJube (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the prod was in no way controversial - just to be sure of that, I put another, single voice actor list through prod a few days ago with basically the same rationale, and it was deleted at the end of the five-day period, which also invalidates your other comment. There are about seven or eight voice actor lists prodded ATM, and of the two or three of the original group that were disputed, this is the only one that was disputed for my rationale being a nonargument. —Dinoguy1000 16:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom --T-rex 19:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - information is redundant and as collected not notable. Or I could have just said "per nom" instead of blathering on. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Esn (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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. Wizardman 03:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Naru 2 U (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable convention that has not held it's first event. No reliable third-party source to support the article, as required by WP:V. Prod was disputed by original author. --Farix (Talk) 14:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure why this keeps getting marked for deletion. The con's official site is referenced. I've also submitted an entry to AnimeCons.com, which should be up within a week. --AceStarleaf (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did you not read the reasoning I gave? The convention is not notable and has not held its first event. There are no reliable third-party sources that supports anything in the article or to assert the conventions notability. A single webPAGE with only a date and location can't be used as a source because anyone could have bought the domain and threw that page up. All other anime conventions have well developed sites that provide more then just a date and location. And AnimeCons.com does require more then just a single webpage, but a fully developed site before they add a convention to their list. But even a listing on AnimeCons.com isn't enough to establish notability as that site is an online directory. And let me also add that a Google search for "Naru 2 U" did not bring up a single hit. Not even from a web forum or blog. --Farix (Talk) 16:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google won't show the site yet as it's not cross linked on any other sites, and the domain itself is only about 2 days old. I have submitted the site to Google already, and a better laid out page is in the works. I figured a Splash Page with the date and location would be better than the "Under Construction" pages most domain hosts put up for a new domain. --AceStarleaf (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2008 (EST)
- Comment And you just provided more evidence as to why this convention isn't notable yet. In probably now falls under the speedy deletion criteria. --Farix (Talk) 17:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you only just thought this con up yourself, it's too early to make an article about it. Right now, it's nothing more than just advertising, and considering that you kicked the internet advertising into full gear before you'd even finished your own site, one has to doubt whether the con will even happen at all, let alone perform well. Gelmax (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree that the article isn't up to any kind of standards now, but like the nominator acknowledged, it's about an event that hasn't happened yet. In other words, while there may not be any reliable sources now, there will be in a couple of months, and it will almost definitely be notable after it's happened. The question, then, is whether we need to go out of our way to delete an article that'll just be remade again before the end of the year. Since it's already here, per WP:WIP and WP:DEADLINE, I think it's worth taking the long-term view and letting it sit till the news articles show up; it's not like it's a stinking blemish on the perfection of Wikipedia or even just the anime/manga articles, after all. Of course, if this article was clearly going to remain this poor forever or even just for a long period of time, prodding it four hours after its creation would be justified. But anime conventions are considered notable, so it's really just a question of what to do with the article in the four months until it attains official and undeniable notability. Gelmax (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipeida is not a crystal ball. We can't assume that there may be reliable sources in the future. The availability of reliable sources has to be judge on what is presently available. BTW, anime conventions has to pass the notability criteria just like any other topic on Wikipedia. They are not considered notable by default. --Farix (Talk) 16:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sure, according to a strict reading of policy that's the case, but it doesn't account for WP:IAR. It's guaranteed that any real convention will be reported on by news sites enough to be considered notable, since it a con is in fact a significant event. This isn't about whether the article meets the regulations NOW, but what we should do with it in the time until it does meet regulations. Deletion policies generally don't allow for future improvement and shouldn't be blindly followed in a case like this where future improvement is guaranteed. Besides, the page has been here for less than a day. Quick-draw deletions like this one should be reserved for undebatable, unimprovable trash, which this page isn't. Gelmax (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no guarantee that a convention will receive coverage by a reliable source, and thus establish notability. I'm not sure where you are getting that from. --Farix (Talk) 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yesh, if you guys want to be this Draconian about it then delete it. I will be re-posting it on Nov 16th after it meets the missing Notability Criteria your complaining about.--AceStarleaf (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not about being draconian, as you put it. We have Notability guidelines and deletion policies that reference them for a reason. If this becomes notable on Nov 16th (by meeting the guidelines for notability-- not just for having happened), then certainly repost it. Cheers! --Storkk (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per TheFarix's reply to AceStarleaf at top of discussion: This is certainly not WP:Notable. It may become notable in the future, and this article can be recreated if it ever does. --Storkk (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment... i've removed the speedy template, as an admin here can easily speedy if they see fit. Shouldn't be both speedy and AfD. --Storkk (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice to recreation once RS are published. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete once it happens and people write about it, it can have an article. Until then the people trying to get this kept should familiarize themselves with why we don't have articles on stuff that has not happened yet. JuJube (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deltete per WP:ORG. Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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. Wizardman 11:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Yu-Gi-Oh! cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An unorganized list of cast members. Voice actors are incorporated into the character descriptions so there is no point in keeping a separate list. --Farix (Talk) 16:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 16:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Redundant article. Doceirias (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redundant. It shouldn't be necessary, but just in case, I'd like to point out that similar lists of voice actors are readily deleted both through AfDs and PRODs (I can provide links as evidence if necessary). —Dinoguy1000 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I'd actually have voted to keep this if it were actually organised in some way and presented in a usable manner, but at present it's just a naked list of names. If anyone wants to fix it up, let me know and I'll change my vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doozy Bots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed prod. Prod reason: No evidence of notability. One promo video does not grant notability. There is no evidence of coverage in any reliable source. I'll also add that the article engages in a high degree of original research and does not maintain a neutral point of view. The only thing that can be verified is what is in the trailer. --Farix (Talk) 12:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 12:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom (yes, I know WP:PERNOM is an argument to avoid, but Farix basically summed it all up), and maybe add a passing mention as appropriate to one of the Gundam articles. —Dinoguy1000 17:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete It clearly doesn't pass muster in its current form, and since the article is about a trailer for a non-notable canceled TV show, it's nearly impossible to improve or expand. The only reason given for the removal of the prod was that the editor hated to see "interesting little stubs like this" get deleted, but when even the editor who de-prodded the article acknowledged that it wouldn't survive an AfD, do we really need to take the time to do one? Gelmax (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my prod. To quote myself: No evidence of notability. One promo video does not grant notability. There is no evidence of coverage in any reliable source. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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 Keep. BJTalk 02:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of programs broadcast by Anime Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nothing but a list of anime titles, with one line of OR. Purely a copy of the original [1]. Wikipedia is not a mirror site for other websites, nor is it an electronic programming guide. This is not a "historically significant programme list." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks - result: Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs) 15:05, July 22, 2008
- Note: that discussion - closed 16:12, 17 July 2006 — was a massive (and I do mean massive) bulk nomination. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Categorise. --Gwern (contribs) 20:29 22 July 2008 (GMT)
- Categorise Better as a category, and WP isn't TV guide anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I seriously doubt that categorization is the best course, or even a good one. Several anime series have been aired on multiple networks around the world. If we categorize these types of lists, then it will result in over-categorization. For example, Dragon Ball has been broadcast by at least 47 different networks. Are we going to put that article into 47 categorize, plus the 24 it is already in? On top of that, these types of categorize often get deleted through WP:CfD. (example Category:Adult Swim anime) --Farix (Talk) 02:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Converting the list into a category is not an option since "categorizing TV shows on the basis of the networks to which they're syndicated is overcategorization". The list could be merged with Anime Network, but it'll end up being split again on account of WP:SIZE.--Nohansen (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Doesn't seem to fall into the "TV guide" area that we discourage. Lists can be used as content or as a navigational aid. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As Ned Scott says, this doesn't seem to be TV guide information, and is both a useful grouping and navigation aid. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Anime and manga categories, templates, and misc
no categories, templates, or misc listed for deletion at this time
Proposed deletions
- Wonder Festival (via WP:PROD)
- List of Gundam cast members (via WP:PROD on 25 July 2008)
- List of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX cast members (via WP:PROD on 24 July 2008)
- List of Macross cast members (via WP:PROD on 24 July 2008)
- List of One Piece cast members (via WP:PROD on 24 July 2008)
- List of Pokémon voice actors (via WP:PROD on 24 July 2008)
- List of Saint Seiya cast members (via WP:PROD on 24 July 2008)
- List of Space Battleship Yamato cast members (via WP:PROD on 24 July 2008)
- List of Yu Yu Hakusho cast members (via WP:PROD on 24 July 2008)