Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloth (Saint Seiya)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Cloth (Saint Seiya)

Cloth (Saint Seiya) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable topic about a fictional concept that doesn't pass WP:NOTE. Based entirely on primary sources and original research. Also violates What Wikipedia is not. Original prod was disputed by article's creator. —Farix (t | c) 17:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 17:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the article is useful to help those who are not familiar with the Saint Seiya universe. It is one of Masami Kurumada's most popular works, not only in Japan but in the world, and the author is well-known worldwide. Also, the concept of Cloth is very important in Saint Seiya, it is recurrent and very frequent within all Saint Seiya related articles, so many readers may become confused if they dont have an article that explains what Cloths are. Lastly, the article is almost finished, it wont become much longer than it is now, so I guess there's no reason to fear it can become fancruft, i have written it using only what is notable and leaving out any minor details. If more references from third parties are needed, then they will be added. Thanks for your attention.Onikiri (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Usefulness or interesting are not acceptable arguments to keep an article that clearly conflicts with many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The content of the article is based on a synthesis with personal interpretations thrown in here and there, which are forms of original research. There are also no third-party references on this fictional element, which is a requirement for all articles. Nor is the popularity or notability of the series as a whole inherited by the fictional elements or characters of the series. —Farix (t | c) 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Unnotable fictional clothing/armor type. Easily explained in a single sentence, as needed, in the main articles. Purely WP:PLOT, WP:OR, and a violation of WP:NOT. The one non-primary source appears to be a WP:COPYRIGHT violating site. Absolutely no significant coverage of this "concept" in any reliable, third-party sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet the minimum standards for inclusion. Please consider using Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0 to create new articles in the future. It will keep this from happening again. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Per all of the above. Not notable. The popularity and notability of the work, author and universe is not a justification for excessively detailed fan essays that fail guidelines and policys. I don't see how the lack of this article will make the other articles difficult to understand. Even if that were the case, it can be explained with a sentence or two where appropriate.Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2010 (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.