Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Japan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not 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. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Japan|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Japan. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Japan

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 of the nomination was delete. I count four for deletion and two making comments suggesting keeping but not actually endorsing it. Mango juice^talk 15:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora-con

Ad for a non-notable anime convention that hasn't happened yet. The article has no incoming links and is littered with cleanup tags that have inspired no such thing, unless contesting the prod was cleanup. Opabinia regalis 16:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wrote on the article's discussion page:

This Article should not be deleted. It is a new convention, but those of us the Anchorage area are looking foward to it and updates will come post event. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.178.41.191 (talk • contribs) .

I nominated an amine article for deletion Kunio Okawara and it got quite a bit of support and even I changed my mind during the discussion. I think this is a new area that many of us don't know about, but it is of interest to many. KarenAnn 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, KarenAnn, the difference between your Ookawara nomination and the Aurora-con nomination is that Ookawara is very notable in Japan, but not as notable here. Aurora-con, however, is in Alaska so it would be easy to prove notability with English sources (A-Kon and Anime North would be examples of anime conventions that are well known.). I also disagree with the categorization under Japan-related articles because it's only peripherally tied to Japan. --ColourBurst 21:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The convention isn't notable yet and would only be notable by being the first anime convention held in Alaska. However, I think it is generally bad practice to create articles on anime conventions that have never been held before, and in most cases such pre-convention articles end up as ads for those conventions. ~~--69.43.20.194 18:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)~~ --TheFarix (Talk) 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The convention is suppose to be held on 14 July 2006. That could mean that a new post-con article would be created just three days after this AfD. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 19:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally nn convention and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --IslaySolomon 20:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I think it's great that Alaska is getting their own anime convention, this one hasn't even happened yet. I think it would be better to wait until after the convention has been held, and then write the article. For this reason, I have to "vote" Delete on this one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't matter whether it happens three days or three years after the AfD concludes, this article doesn't deserve to exist yet and needs to serve as an example for other authors content on being presumptuous about the future. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 04:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it is notable after it occurs, then it should be notable before it occurs. We have a lot of things that haven't occured yet, like future elections. No crytal ball refers to making up info that one couldn't know at the present. If it is Alaska's first anime con, that fact doesn't change if it hasn't happened yet. That being said, I don't know what the notability critera are for cons period, it might very well fail them.--Rayc 19:24, 9 July 2006 (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 of the debate was no consensus, and I also hate the fact that Magic players get coverage. They should get a life. :) - CrazyRougeian talk/email 08:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daigo Umehara

A big name in the Street Fighter community does not equal notability. Danny Lilithborne 03:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nowadays he is known worldwide, thanks to the Evo tournament video and others. The video is watched even by people who doesn't have much knowledge about the game, due to this dramatic characteristic. A well research would evidence that others countries makes his fame also. Examples are communities in Orkut.com dedicated to him: http://www.orkut.com/Community.aspx?cmm=8410635.This should be considered.
Keep - He is not known here except in the hardcore gaming community. He is VERY known in Japan. He doesn't get coverage in the States? Might as well remove all entries about all singers that don't sing in english while you're at it. I'm telling you he means a lot to the Japanese gaming community, they've made Ascii Arts of him on 2chan. DenkouNova 22:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that he is in fact notable. He's an international champion of what he does. International champion surfers and Magic card players are in here, so why not this guy too? Richardcavell 03:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Surfers get coverage. Magic card players (as much as it pains people to admit) also get coverage. Street Fighter players do not. Even at the height of SF's popularity, they never got any notable coverage. Danny Lilithborne 03:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Magic card players' coverage is mostly limited to promotional material, community sites, and David Williams for his poker playing. --ColourBurst 02:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may be an international champion, but only at something incredibly obscure and specific. Someone like Fatal1ty is notable because he achieved recognition in the mainstream media and financial success through sponsorship. --IslaySolomon 04:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richardcavell. I think it needs more sourcing rather than deletion. It's very likely he received sponsorships and other notable news coverage within Japan. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Nihonjoe. Needs sourcing. - Wickning1 04:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Daigo is equally notable as Jonathan Wendel in the gaming community. Also, Daigo is notable in Japan even among the general gamer, not just SF players and has been featured on a DVD. Also he has a imdb profile and is written in gamespot. ^[1] ^[2]

(7/3/2006) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.218.111 (talk • contribs)

Comment That IMDB entry is for "Bang the Machine", an out-of-print documentary about the SF scene. I was the one who submitted the info on the players that appeared in that movie; otherwise he wouldn't have an IMDB profile, which is all kinds of ironic. And the GameSpot "article" is just rankings for EVO in 2003. If your claims about him being known in Japanese circles is true, then it should be rewritten with verifiable sources as such, and "I know a Japanese guy who totally knows Daigo" doesn't count. Danny Lilithborne 06:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems of infinitesimal notability to me. Delete. -- Hoary 07:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Against Better Judgement Keep - I'm opposed to having articles on Magic champions but this guy is more notable than a whole raft of minor gaming persons that I am in the minority on wanting to remove. MLA 08:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor gaming celeb. -- GWO
Delete as non-notable. The Magic card game players should go too, but that's another AfD. -- Kjkolb 10:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a player of a traditional sport, but a "champion" fighter all the same, keep. —Pengo 10:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article on an individual video-game player. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more notable then any of these "Category:Magic:_The_Gathering_players". The point is that people could randomly want to find information on who the best player in SF is, since the game has been played by everyone. It is the same with Magic. People who vote against have so far lacked an argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by killerhun00 (talk • contribs)
- Comment "People might randomly want to find information" is hardly a convincing argument. Danny Lilithborne 18:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment What is Wikipedia for if not for finding information? Your counter-argument has no value at all. DenkouNova 23:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment It's not for random finding of information, to be sure, otherwise we wouldn't have Articles for Deletion proceedings. Danny Lilithborne 23:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Um...the last time I checked AfD are because people have A. Fake articles, B. Articles that are unverifiable C. Article of zero notablilty. Much of the information on Wikipedia is found randomly, mainly through the well-organized link process (ie hyperlink in a different article, and lists) this is what make wikipedia great. In fact this is what most people do. For example lets say a person interested in the "History of SF" accidently stumbles upon "Daigo Umehara" in the Street Fighter article. If you are stating that this is not random, or the person has no interest in "The Best Player in SF" then I can say with 100% certainty that you have no idea what you are talking about. SF has a large enough following of causal players that people not searching for the best SF player or even the SF tournament scene would be interested in reading about Daigo. Lets take another example: The other day I "randomly" stumbled upon Kardashev scale. I came across this while reading "Energy economics" which linked through the category to Kardashev scale. Now that was completely random, I also found Kardashev scale to be one of the most interesting reads in my life. Therefore, Lilithborne, you are done stop talking. 71.248.218.111 05:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        This is the last comment I'm going to make regarding this, because you obviously are not willing to listen to reason. The majority of articles that go through the AfD process are biographies of people considered not notable. This is just another one of them. I played SF for a long, long time and I'm pretty sure I know more about Daigo than you do. (A-Guy, anyone?) However, unlike poker, whose players have widespread popularity, SF remains, as MCB eloquently put it, an insular gaming community that rejects "newbies", ironically when they need new blood the most. "History of SF" on Wikipedia should be about the game in and of itself; the tournaments held, for the most part, failed to influence its evolution in any significant way. Now, as someone who has been playing SF seriously for about seven years, rest assured that you, like many other fanatics before you, greatly overestimate the influence of SF on society. So, since reason's lost on you, I'll leave it at this: Daigo Umehara is not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry and that, my friend, is that. What happens after this point is not up to you or me, but the admins. Danny Lilithborne 06:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I would like you to know that I am not part of the SF community. I rarely play SF and see it nothing more than a causal game. I found this article to be notable and interesting. I stumbled upon this article through the category, japanese people. Therefore if I find this article to be notable, it probably is, since I do not belong in the interest group. 71.248.218.111 18:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per above --AlexDW 17:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 00:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable biography, unknown outside a small and insular gaming community. --MCB 06:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just hear about Daigo through Wikipedia. I am not a part of the SF scene, and found this article to be very interesting. This person seems notable. 204.52.215.13 00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A legend in his community and someone that people who read about street fighter should hear about. He is an interesting side note in SF history. -Kbalch.
Keep I'm going to regret this but I am going to do serious damage to my deletionist reputation by voting keep. I think that this kid is notable in his field and I think that WP should be a broad enough church to find a place for guys like him. BlueValour 03:52, 8 July 2006 (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 of the nomination was keep, reflected in this case by a history merge. Mackensen (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shinmin no Michi

Author admits it may fail ~~WP:HOAX~~, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. DarkAudit 20:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to where the author admits to it being a hoax, so we can speedy it. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-02 21:50Z

I'm sorry. Tag he used was accuracy. --DarkAudit 21:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are references given, so presumably it's not OR. Mostly it seems factual, but any NPOV is not a reason to delete. It's a reason to clean up, which this article certainly needs and is tagged as such. I would be more wary of a copyvio, with a machine translation from an original. The same text is also at Hito-Do. There are some google hits, but you wouldn't expect many for a subject of this kind. Tyrenius 01:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand, source and cleanup. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs a good cleaning. - Wickning1
Weak Delete The edit-history and discussion of Hito-Do which is the same article of this page should be preserved. Hence, this page should be deleted. After that, Hito-Do should be renamed to Shinmin no Michi. Hito-Do Should not be redirect page since "Hito-Do" is completely neologistic name.--Questionfromjapan 10:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with this. - Wickning1 14:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, too.--Celldea 09:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge history. It looks like both were created by the same user(s), Torun31 and Torn23; he/they probably didn't know about redirects. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-04 06:10Z

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 of the debate was no consensus, so Keep. Renomination in the usual timeframe; can't cut a break here. — Deckill e r 02:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FFXIclopedia

ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because FFXIclopedia (second nomination), please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Previously deleted content (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FFXIclopedia). However this was over a year ago, so I'm giving it the full AfD again. I originally prodded it [1], but the author removed it with this explanation: [2]. Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Final Fantasy deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 09:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since WP:NOT a web directory. Just zis Guy you know? 17:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM Ste4k 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See the following discussion at the article's talk page: --TruthbringerToronto 00:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this page be marked for deletion, but something like WoWWiki is not - this page was actually a copy/paste of the WoWWiki page. FFXIclopedia contains more articles than WoWWiki does and probably has a much larger user base. FFXIclopedia has nearly 100,000 unique visits a month and should be recognized for that. I do believe that FFXIclopedia meets the first criteria specified on WP:WEB, at least as well as WoWWiki does. This is not an advertisement. Wikipedia is probably the last place an FFXI gamer would go to find how to complete quests/missions or find other factual information about Final Fantasy XI. FFXIclopedia is already referenced in numerous places on Wikipedia - see Final Fantasy XI for example. Wikipedia has borrowed information from FFXIclopedia in numerous cases - see Final_Fantasy_XI_character_classes and Vana'diel. There is no solid reason to delete this page --Ganiman 16:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is notability, not number of articles. WoWWWiki simply appears to be more notable overall. Since you are contesting this deletion, I will list the article for full AfD to allow discussion. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the notability of FFXIclopedia is even in question. Please, feel free to browse the site, look at the number of users, etc... the information that is in FFXIclopedia is amongst the most accurate for Final Fantasy XI. As I said, Wikipedia itself has used it as a resource already. It seems the community has already spoken. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are talking about. --Ganiman 20:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --TruthbringerToronto 00:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory Bwithh 01:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's understandable that Wikipedia is not a web dictionary, but then why would pages like WoWWiki and GuildWiki be acceptable where this is not? Like it or not, FFXIclopedia has become a piece of Final Fantasy history and is referenced in numerous places in Wikipedia already. --Ganiman 14:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ganiman. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What I'd like to see from the "keepers" is specific examples of how exactly this website passes WP:WEB. It was claimed on the talk page (and copied above) that it does pass criteria 1, which states "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself," but where's the proof? Also, if Wikipedia has in fact used it as a resource in the past, then it should be a citation in that/those article(s). What we need to focus on here is whether it merits its own article. Provide sources here folks. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seeing as WP:WEB is a guideline and not a policy, there is no need for it to pass notability. And the fact that you get 26,700 hits from google when searching for "site:FFXIclopedia" it is notable enough to be added. As well as it being a great resource for FF information. What I would like to see from the Deletionists is a reason why this does not merrit it's own article when it has so many articles, and has that many hits on Google? Deleting something for the sake of deleting is not the Wiki way. Havok (T/C/c) 09:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory. -- Hoary 07:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Needs heavy clean up as well as less pov. And needs to be worked on because right now it's a stub.
Keep Notable, however requires cleanup. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alexa traffic rank is 48,379. WoWWiki, on the other hand, has a rank of 5,737. Also, searching for FFXIclopedia using "site:FFXIclopedia" yields 7 unique results. Searching for just "FFXIclopedia" (in quotes) yields 71 unique hits. All the other hits are either repeats, individual articles in the wiki, or message boards and irrelevant sites - therefore, the 27,100 number is invalid, and this site fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I have said above, WP:WEB is not a policy, so there is nothing to fail. And using Alexa is silly seeing as it requires people to install a plugin, which not many have. So that in it self makes your vote void. Havok (T/C/c) 09:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well, if you throw that out, then you still have the search engine problem. It fails the search engine tests miserably. The site obviously isn't that popular if it's only gained a few Google and Yahoo hits in the last year or so (it was deleted for lack of notability stemming from the search engine test). Subjects here must have verifiable notability. With only 7 or 71 Google hits and only a few more Yahoo hits, there isn't any. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment That's the problem with "notability", as it is very much POV. It may not be notable to you, but it is notable to someone. Havok (T/C/c) 10:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment The fact that it has 15 thousand plus articles makes it notable to me. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 12:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment My significant-other is quite notable to me, but I certainly wouldn't start a Wikipedia article about her, so saying "this site is notable to me" isn't a compelling argument. One of the questions here is whether it's notable to enough people. WP:WEB isn't policy, no, but is is a consensus-based guideline, which articles can be scrutinized against. Show us multiple WP:RSs that have reviewed or otherwise discussed this website. Per WP:V, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment So, in essence of what you are saying, there could be a small religous culture in a rain forest that consists of only a couple hundred people. Are you saying that their religion would not be considered "notable" because not enough people believe in it? --Ganiman 15:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        If it's not written about in a reliable source, then no it wouldn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiablity, not truth." --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 15:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to address three points: First, in response to claims that the wiki is not a web directory, I give you this page: List of wikis. If the wiki is so strict as to have a page exclusion based upon the "non-web-directory" criteria, then what is the point of that page. That page is intended to list notable wikis. FFXIclopedia.org is a noteable wiki. The inclusion in the wiki is not to just add another directory listing, but to give recognition to a notable wiki. Second, to those using Alexa as a basis for comparison between WoWwiki and FFXIclopedia, your premise is inherently flawed. The user base of WoW is almost 100x that of FFXI. Thus any traffic for a database used for WoW will outstrip any traffic for a database for FFXI. It's like comparing the population of New York with the population of Rhode Island and saying that Rhode Island doesn't deserve recognition as a state because it doesn't have enough people. The fact is that FFXIclopedia has more data about its game, then WoWwiki has about WoW. FFXIclopedia is a more notable website for FFXI, than WoWwiki is for WoW. Finally, for the FFXI game, FFXIclopedia is one of the premier websites. The fact that it is wiki based makes it even more noteable. It is the only user-driven database for the FFXI game out there. It is the most dynamic and the most up to date. In comparison to traffic of other FFXI websites, FFXIclopedia ranks near the top. Thus, in summary, it is notable because it is one of the largest FFXI sites on the web, it is wiki based, and it is the only user driven website for FFXI. - Mierin (FFXIclopedia administrator) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rolks (talk • contribs) .

- Comment I think you should have explained what Premiere Community means. A Premiere Community has been official recognized by the game operator as a site helpful to the user and one that is recommended for usage. Currently only five communities (Englsih Communities) rank as Premiere. But I have to say, I haven't found the FFXIclopedia among those.

That being said, as a gamer of FFXI, this Wiki is indeed one of the best and most reliable sources on FFXI. Due to it being a wiki it integreates better than every other page for FFXI all the different games aspects. Depending upon what is needed and usefull it serves as a mere database with lost of different information and is logical connected to each other, but it also serves as a consie game guide or walkthrough for quests.

Other pages for FFXI have their strength either in Walkthroughs or in mere Databases, the FFXIclopedia has both strengths and others. It isn't perfect, but it is indeed a very important tool for FFXI gamers, used by many.

I do play FFXI, I do use the FFXIclopedia as my primary source of information on various things. Do do not play WoW and before this discussion I had heard of various WoW pages, but never of WoWWiki. --84.184.85.201 06:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Ganiman 14:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Rolks 14:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (that comment above by Mierin, is me)[reply]

Keep In a search for "FFXIclopedia" 34,200 hits from Google, I would say that is notable. It is a excellent source for FFXI related material. --Rbunch 15:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the administrator of the site, I think you should stay out of the AfD as you are biased to keeping it no matter what. Havok (T/C/c) 15:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's fair. In truth, I only push the FFXIclopedia b/c of the presense of the WoWwiki and the Guild Wars wiki. If they weren't here, then it wouldn't have even occurred to me to have a wikipedia entry. However, when I noticed that those sites were considered noteable enough for a wiki entry, then ours was even more so. But I'll admit I'm biased. My apologies. --Rolks 15:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Although my opinion may seem biased, I have posted our site's full history on the Talk Page for anyone wishing to know more about the site. --Rolks 17:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WoWWiki it seems this entire process is laughable. So a few people who edit Wikipedia play WoW and speak up for it's "notability" while people who do not play FFXI, have no credibility in the Final Fantasy XI community, come here and say FFXIclopedia is less notable. No single person who speaks against the FFXIclopedia page on this AfD have any credibility in the Final Fantasy XI community and there opinions on the notability of the site should be completely irrelevent to this discussion. --Ganiman 17:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same complaint you have about the WoWWiki AfD is exactly what's happening here; fans are coming here and saying "keep!", yet all they can attest to is the site's usefulness. Usefulness is not a criteria for keeping an article; verifiability is. Even with all the wonderful things being said about this website here, the article still has no references and no evidence that it passes either WP:WEB (which again though isn't policy, it is a guideline) or WP:V. There's still ample time to fix the article before the end of this AfD; c'mon "keepers", make this article pass criteria! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to have asked; Do you not find the article interesting? Do you not "learn" anything about the subject? That is why I never understand deletionists, instead of looking at the content of the article you automatically run for the delete button when you find nothing on Google or Alexa about it. This article isn't a stub, it's full of content; allright, it needs cleaning, but so do many articles on Wikipedia. Someone pushing random article and landing on this article might find it interesting. Is that not the reason we are here? To collect all the information of the world. You may argue that it's not notable, and I would have understand why you would want it removed if it was a silly little stub of two lines with no information about the subject matter. But this article does not fall under that. And it even promotes Wikipedia, by showing everyone that free and available information that can be edited by anyone is good. Havok (T/C/c) 21:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a user of the disputed wiki FFXIclopedia, and I have made minor edits/changes to it as well. If I can demonstrate other, high traffic FFXI-related sites linking to the wiki and referring to it's content - is that enough ? If another site or author makes certain statements about the wiki, does that meet the criteria ? Will that satisfy the Verification criteria ? There is quite a bit of work to be done to clean up the article, and I want to know what it will take before I take the time to do it. --Eue 21:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, after taking a closer look at the pages in question, I think I know what the problem was. I have removed the part of the article referring to the history of the web site. I am still prepared to hunt down external references to FFXIclopedia - the issue with a totally third party source is, that our site is considered authoritative amongst people who actually play the game - meaning almost any links thru search engines will be circular (i.e., they will link right back to us, as someone has already pointed out). Please keep discussing, and let me know what else needs to be done. --Eue 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS (WP guidelines regarding reliable sources). Finding a RS that discusses the site would be a good start --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when it comes to FFXI, I would actually think FFXIclopedia is a reliable source in itself. But we'll keep looking. Still absolutly no reason to delete the article though. Havok (T/C/c) 06:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Verifiable means "that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." I don't see how the verifiable guideline applies to the current version of the article. The facts identified in the article are self-verifying. The FFXIclopedia is a wiki dedicated to FFXI and covered by the GNU license. This is documented on the front page of the FFXIclopedia itself. The origin of the name is similarly self-evident. The age of the FFXIclopedia is verified via the history of the site and oldest pages and the number of articles is verified via the statistics page on that site. The facts are verifiable from the FFXIclopedia itself - so maybe the question is whether that site of a reliable source as to these facts. However there is no more reliable a source of the existence, scope, infrastructure and statistics of the FFXIclopedia than the FFXIclopedia itself. The facts identified in the article can only be verified through the FFXIclopedia. --Gahoo 14:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Discount Meatpuppetry

Totally misses WP:WEB "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article."

1) The article does not show how the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published workd of an independant source.

2) The article does not mention theat the site has won a well known and independent award

3) The article also does not mention that the content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators. (i.e. major newspapers NOT geocities-style sites.) --Kunzite 22:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay, I have been able to find Alexa ranking for the site : as it relates to Final Fantasy XI-related websites, FFXIclopedia is 4th most popular. The only three sites that are more popular are ffxi.allakhazam.com (which is a general-purpose MMORPG database/forum), ffxi.somepage.com (another general-purpose MMORPG database/forum), and www.playonline.com (the official website for Final Fantasy XI). Generic Alexa ratings or Google searches are not very clear, because of the requirement WP:WEB and WP:NOT seem to need more than just a raw statistic. This particular reference, however, is a categorised search : It is a top five site, when people are searching Alexa specifically for Final Fantasy XI. I have added this source to the article, and now can state that the article now meets WP:NOT. Also, I have read into the standards for pop-culture sites and propose that people bear that guideline in mind as well : insofar as many pop-culture sites will not have the formal press acknowledgments..... in either case, I am more than willing to keep trying, but the Alexa ranking within the subject matter at hand clearly shows the web site is notable. The article has been edited to show the correct citation, as requested. Please keep this article.--Eue 05:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to keep shooting you down, but it's #4 in a category of only 55 sites. 24 of those 55 are Clans & Guilds, 8 are fan works, and 3 are chats and forums. I do have to give you credit for your efforts thus far though, your researching and citing is good work.

Also, would you mind indicating which policy/guideline you're referring to in relation to pop-culture sites? Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 06:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've changed my vote to Neutral seeing as the article is now a stub. Havok (T/C/c) 06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm done arguing this. You seem bound and determined to delete this regardless of what we say regarding notability of the site. Within the FFXI community, FFXIclopedia is notable. I have no clue where this verifiability requirement, or Kunzite's requirements for awards and recognition came from. You all seem to want to place real high standards for this site to meet, and no matter what standards we meet, you all seem to raise the requirements higher. So just delete it.

Our main contention was that if WoWWiki and Guild Wars Wiki are included, then FFXIclopedia should be included as well. Using Alexa, FFXIclopedia is 4 out of 55 sites. However, WoWWiki is 5 out of 45 sites and the Guild Wars Wiki isn't even in the top 10. Yet, both WoWWiki and Guild Wars Wiki are somehow considered notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, but FFXIclopedia is not. Ironically, I called FFXIclopedia a premier site, and AbsoluteDan shot down this statement saying Square Enix doesn't list it as a premier site. But looking at the Alexa rankings, two of the sites listed as premier by Square Enix do not even make the top ten, and FFXIclopedia is listed higher than two other "premier" sites. I don't know how much more proof of notability and suitability for Wikipedia entry you want.

As a minor note, it should be noted that we are only having this discussion because the Wikipedia itself has a List of wikis in which notable wikis are listed. FFXIclopedia is also notable because it is a wiki.

FFXIclopedia, within the FFXI universe, is more notable than WoWWiki and Guild Wars Wiki are within their own universe. That is my arguement; Eue, Gahoo, and Havok have provided my support. If that is not good enough for you, nothing more we say will be. Just delete it. It's what you realy want to do, so just delete it. But you should also delete the WoWWiki and Guild Wars Wiki too. --Rolks 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to add one more note before this page meets it's doom. We've put up more of a fight to keep this page than WoWWiki and GuildWiki have combined. Both of those pages have been stubs and remain stubs. They were not challanged nearly as much as FFXIclopedia has been, yet pages like Girlfriend are allowed to exist. (Seriously, take a look at that page; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dictionary right? All I see there is definitions of the word and there is nothing notable about it - that crap belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia). Seriously, what is one more page in Wikipedia? So much crap and misinformation is allowed to live here, and people with the most page edits or whatever are allowed to be self-proclaimed Wikipedia police and do what they feel based on the mood they happen to be in that day. As I've said, the entire process is laughable, and I'm starting to believe the editors at FFXIclopedia make better arguments and more sound decisions than the editors at Wikipedia. Delete this page, it's what you want, and no matter what we say, for whatever unknown reason, Dan is going to win, but at least be fair and be thorough and search wikipedia for even more bogus articles and mark them for deletion. --Ganiman 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another small comment here.. I could dig up hundreds of articles in Wikipedia that do not meet the guidelines Kunzite cited. Get over it. --Ganiman 18:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love how a page must be verifiable to exist, then there are countless articles in Wikipedia like this: Evil_Ernie_(comics). This gets more and more amusing the more I hit the Random Article link. --Ganiman 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree this is all pretty absurd. One of two things should happen. 1) The more complete history of the FFXIclopedia is added back in with pretty charts and pictures so that it is not a stub-ish entry and actually provides some interesting background on what is without question a notable site in the FFXI community. There would more than likely be no way to verify the facts in the article, but it could have the unverified stub. Or 2) The stub-ish entry is left without the unverified stub. Since the facts the article in that form are self-verifying. I would think that something that seeks to be an encyclopedia would rather have an interesting article with a historical account than the stub-ish article, but I will defer to the larger contributors as to what is preferred. --Gahoo 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@AbsolutDan : The Pop-culture note I referred to was the final part of WP:RS - which states that while the site must have a verifiable source, it is understood that "due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on. Therefore, the most reliable material available is expected, but sources for these topics should not be held to as strict a standard." I propose that the site be regarded as a pop-culture site for these purposes.

Also, regarding you dispute of the Alexa source : the content of the other sites in the category are tangent to the fact that Alexa categorized the site in the first place. It is not, therefore, the reliability of the other sites in the category, but the reliablity of Alexa that grants the criteria needed to verify that FFXIclopedia is notable.

As far as people being very concerned about the high number of forum posts and blogs related to the subject : that is the nature of a pop-culture subject. Particularly with Final Fantasy XI, which is a Japanese game with international participation : there are only three English-language publications that are specific to the game, and the only regular press coverage for the game are press releases for the actual game itself (and its expansions). All English-language information or references to Final Fantasy XI in general derives from forum posts and blog entries. That is, until FFXIclopedia was started. But the community of people who play the game have traditionally used forums to spread information. Also, the wider press coverage in English is not very broad, since Sqaure Enix relies on word of mouth and the Final Fantasy name to sell the game; the "hard news" or third party review of the site that the deletionists have been demanding simply will not be there for any web site dealing with this subject matter.

Again, where it concerns the subject at hand, Alexa demonstrates that the site is the 4th most popular site. That meets WP:NOT. I propose that other concerns be relegated to the pop-culture provision of WP:RS - that very accurately describes the kind of site/reference/article we are dealing with here.

@ Havok - I believe someone may have added the stub back to the article to try to save it.... I have removed a large section of material that did not focus on the factual presentation/description of what the site is and why it is important (or, more to the point, why it is importnat enough to be in Wikipedia). --Eue 20:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:RS does provide some flexibility when it comes to reliable sources, but note that it still requires a source: "Therefore, the most reliable material available is expected..." That's assuming this site can be considered "pop-culture" --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be real. Being foruth most popular site in Alexa does NOT meet the criteria. I have the highest rated site for my Alexa category and I certainly don't expect to have a wikipedia page dedicated to my out of date fansite for a television show. I even removed it from an external link entry when someone else added it because I want to avoid conflict of interest. --Kunzite 05:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself, your site is "outdated", this site - as I see it - is updated on a daily basis. And seeing as WoWWiki has it's own page, having one for this site dosn't hurt anyone, nor does it hurt Wikipedia. Havok (T/C/c) 10:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the site is outdated is because the TV show that it's based on ended a while ago and there has been little new information to update it with. A site being updated on a daily basis still makes no difference. It's still the most popular site on the alexa list and has a rather popular forum that is posed in on a daily basis. This site is non-notable. It fails WP:WEB it should be removedand converted to a link or section on the game page. --Kunzite 18:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd also like to point out that this search really does not do well on a google test.. If one restricts a google search just a bit and searches either: " "wiki.ffxiclopedia.org" -forum -forums -wikipedia " (22 hits) [3] or " "ffxiclopedia.org" -forum -forums -wikipedia " [4] (40,500 HOWEVER, there are ONLY ~20 pages in that search that are not on the ffxiclopedia site itself.) --Kunzite 22:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To the closing administrator: If this page is no concensus, may I ask that it be relisted to gain more input. --Kunzite 18:30, 8 July 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makoto Imaizumi

Seems to be noted only for speaking about Wikipedia to media and at events. So have, for example, Kurt Jansson and Arne Klempert for the German Wikipedia and Wikimedia e.V. (both have appeared in national newspapers, magazines, and on national television), neither of whom has (or should have) an article. Wikipedia is such a media phenomenon that being interviewed about it alone does not make one notable. Might reconsider if he receives an official position with a Japanese chapter.

To the closing admin: Please don't forget to delete the pictures.--Eloquence * 00:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Maybe if he receives a very senior official position Bwithh 01:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there somewhere in the Wikipedia namespace for biographies of users with bureaucrat status? Fg2 02:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No. You know, the permission level was called "bureaucrat" exactly because we didn't want people to consider it a status symbol, but a purely functional role for some higher level administrative tasks (assigning sysop, bot status). We could probably have called it "silly wikiaddict" and people would still want to proudly proclaim it in their biographies. ;-) --Eloquence * 02:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless something outside of Wikipedia evangelism can be found. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nn. - Longhair 00:16, 5 July 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z: The Movie

For starters, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And gosh, this isn't even on IMDB. —Whomp [T] [C] 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible hoax, plus NN and WP:V. Zos 19:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scrying per above. SM247^{My Talk} 00:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Originally just a page saying, "Nothing has been announced, but it's very popular, so you know there'll be something!" which could be used as an example of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This version added by the anon who deprodded it is just flat-out hoax. Morgan Wick 01:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:59, 3 July 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. WP:MUSIC and WP:RS primary here. Proto///type 15:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda (song)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zelda (song) - Previous nomination

No citation from a third party, no indication of notability, nothing to merge meaningfully into. - brenneman ^{L} 00:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would argue that it is notable, although it may not perfectly fit according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs, which is currently just a proposed policy after all. It is at least fairly well known as an internet phenomenon, and I would argue that the article, though short, does add an important piece of information about it by stating that it is not a System of a Down song as is commonly believed. A quick look at the talk page for System of a Down shows that this is a fairly widely held belief. I'll admit that it might be hard to find sources for something like this, but I still think that it is notable and the sources issue can most likely be worked out.--Derco 00:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just another meme, not worthy of cleanup or research. -- Mikeblas 00:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:MEME; hasn't been subject of any major media works--TBCTaLk?!? 01:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable meme. SM247^{My Talk} 02:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:MUSIC, WP:MEME. --Randy Johnston (‽) 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and because of the recently closed AfD. If the nom wants sources for this, a better way to start might be to leave a message on the talk page and/or use templates, rather than prodding in violation of prod rules and rapidly renominating on AfD. --JJay 02:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "...because of the recently closed AfD"? Did you see the 6-2 delete-keep vote at that AfD? -- Kicking222 12:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing has changed since the last time, still notable due to the misattribution to System of a Down. Still an excellent example as to why we need to figure outa guideline for net memes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we have a third party source for the misattribution? - brenneman ^{L} 04:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfrotunately, not anything that would be acceptable at this juncture, as this had its heyday a number of years ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge info into articles on System of a Down and/or The Legend of Zelda. I'm all for articles on net memes, but this isn't a terribly important one. Penelope D 04:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:MEME. The AfD renomination policy does not apply because the previous result was no consensus, and there aren't many contributors to this article (just one or two). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really notable. Its only claim to fame is the fact that a bunch of people thought it was by SOAD, but that's not article-worthy in my opinion. WarpstarRider 04:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable to begin with, and no sources to boot. Tito xd^(?!?) 05:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn internet phenomenon. Possibly merge a line about it's existence into The Legend of Zelda. MLA 06:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Legend of Zelda article, or a more relevent one if availible. --Ted87 06:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable internet fad. No reliable sources. It fails WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB and also WP:MEME. It just fails. - Motor (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:CSD#A3 No content whatsoever. Ste4k 10:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Motor; misses WP:MUSIC by a very long way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's unsourced and it's simply non-notable. I think Motor summed it up pretty well. -- Kicking222 12:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Motor. -- GWO
Delete per WP:WEB, WP:MEME and above hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 14:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:MEME. put misattribution on System of a Down, if it can be sourced. --Samael775 16:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Samael1775. Zos 16:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, please take note. I just substantially rewrote the citations. If your delete vote was on something other than notability grounds, please reevaluate the article. I'd suggest reevaluating the article anyway. On notability grounds, furthermore, this squeaks by fairly well; the misattribution became fairly notorious. Captainktainer * Talk 18:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The link provided in the article seems to say nothing about the misattribution? - brenneman ^{L} 08:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable both for its common misattribution to SOAD and as a meme (separate from its SOAD connection). The citation for the misattribution still needs work, though. On a personal note, I had been under the impression that this song was recorded by SOAD until I read this article, and I believe many others still are. --Michael 20:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - really not worthy of its own article -- Alias Flood 02:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge with something. Joeyramoney 03:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable song. It's already mentioned in The Legend of Zelda series article, so there is no need for a separate article. --Musicpvm 08:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hate to spoil the work of editors who know what they're doing, but this article barely says anything about its subject, and everything nontrivial it says, it has no reliable source for. Mango juice^talk 13:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge somewhere and delete, or just delete, per Mangojuice et al. -- Hoary 07:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I enjoy the song, I agree with deletion reasons listed above. Wickethewok 14:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good song, and I appreciate the effort of the contributors, but is there really anything much to say about it? I see the article for the band itself has been deleted, elsewhise I'd suggest redirecting there, with an appropriate section. Luna Santin 07:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Legend of Zelda series - it's worth a mention, but as is the case for most other songs, doesn't need its own article. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. – Avi 16:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Discography

Article apparently created in error; duplicates information found on article on band "Rain".--Hisako 07:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant due to Rain's Discography article--TBCTaLk?!? 09:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: wait a minute, Rain's not Japanese... anyways, delete it.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:58, 3 July 2006 (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 of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog (fandom)

For the exact same reasons as the Zelda fandom AfD; Cannot be independently verified, and therefore is WP:OR, unable to be neutrally written. Nifboy 07:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR violation. hateless 07:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A lot of the current article may be unverifiable as above, but there are verifiable facts there (such as alt.fan.sonic-hedgehog timeline). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 08:20Z
Strong Delete Totally unencyclopedic, only references are usenet postings! If there are any hidden gems of good verifiable information in there, they can be merged into the main Sonic article, but I didn't see any. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete nn, fancruft, completely unencyclopedic.--Jersey Devil 09:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as non-notable fancruft that fails WP:NOR. Sure, the fandom exists, but the info in this article is unverifiable with reliable sources. --Coredesat talk 10:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PJM 11:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR Nearly Headless Nick 11:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not as OR, but because there's very little here that sets Sonic fandom apart from any other fandom. Every fandom has Mary Sues, every fandom has debates over shipping and yaoi/yuri, etc. - we could just cover that stuff in the main fandom article and have done with it, and anything distinctive about Sonic fandom can be mentioned in the Sonic the Hedgehog article. Penelope D 04:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It simply isn't specific enough to be notable. You could talk about individual forums, but they wouldn't be notable enough to warrant their own articles, nor a compiled one either. Black-Velvet 10:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:57, 3 July 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiichan

Niche forum software, permastub; Not to be confused with Shii-chan. Kotepho 17:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOFT, non-notable and now defunct forum software--TBCTaLk?!? 01:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonexistentware. See quote from link provided: "Shiichan was a 2ch-type board in PHP. It was written in late 2004 by a guy named Shii. Currently, it is in a buggy beta stage, and no development is planned." Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It does actually exist, and people do still use it. Kotepho 01:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment "Buggy beta stage" doesn't sound like much of an existence, but I take your point -- I overstated mine. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable b/c it doesn't exist.--Blog Mav Rick 02:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it does exist, but it's not notable (WP:SOFTWARE). --Coredesat talk 04:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless I see some secondary sources, some innovative aspect of the software, or any claim to notability. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "As of 2005, it's no longer in development." Very true. And, as of 2006, it's "no longer in Wikipedia." --Alphachimp ^talk 07:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOFT Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shii-chan. Optichan 22:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:57, 3 July 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of video game consoles (eighth generation)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Indrian 22:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nor is it a clubhouse for preteens. george 22:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk 22:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure speculation ikh (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - junk. Ace of Risk 16:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - F 22 07:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC) - Keep it. so what if it is in the future, so are hundreds of wiki articles. What damage can be done by keeping this article. Think of the people who have worked on this article and put effort into it.[reply]
Keep- I've cleaned up the speculation and will continue too if it's neccesary. It is a confirmed event, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have all confirmed they will be producing consoles in that generation.Spizzma 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only is it confirmed that the companies will make systems for that generation but I doubt it will be long before we start hearing more information (Cell was announced not that long after the PS2 was released & Nintendo always reveals the code name early). SNS 01:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then we can make an article then. Right now, there is no verifiable information that could be included in this article, and "Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo will be producing consoles" is not enough. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballism. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Coredesat. - Wickning1 04:44, 3 July 2006 (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 of the debate was no consensus. Proto///type 14:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Up! Aria

Delete Just a non-notable hentai. I'd think it would fall into the same category as countless non-notable porno movies. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just hold a minute. I am not through with the page yet! BushinGuy
~~Neutral~~ Weak Keep if Kitty Media is notable, this is on the list of their ~~productions~~ translations of hentai. ~~Logic says this debate might be better held about Kitty Media, and then either all their productions go, or all stay.~~ Having looked at several of the other pages in the list at Kitty Media I see this as no more and no less notable than their other ~~films~~ work. The article is much shorter and is really a stub. Fiddle Faddle 21:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Re: above: Even if the company's notable, their individual products may not be. As an example, if we find that Bic is notable, does that perforce mean that each of their pen lines are worthy of solo articles?--Fuhghettaboutit 21:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because a company is notable doesn't mean all its products are notable. --Coredesat talk 22:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Fiddle Faddle. As notable as any other of Kitty Media's productions. Tevildo 10:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Kitty Media is only a translator of H-Anime, not the producer. Therefore, I think that argument really shouldn't hold for them. Also, see what Fuhghettaboutit said. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment My error. I will now cross out some more above. I still view the item as a Keep, but in view of reinvestigating to confirm your info I am revising my opinion to "weak". Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable (it's been commercially published in at least two countries now). Also, I agree with Fiddle Faddle's comments above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm for every work of anime that ever existed being in Wikipedia. The fact that the product does not interest YOU does not make it unnoteable. Snarfies 15:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, ~~now is not the time~~ the Wikipedia is not the place for fanboyism. It isn't notable (not just because I don't care about it, but because there are incredibly' few souls out there who do), and it's hentai or H anime, not plain anime. There are plenty of independent films and pornographic films that have been deleted that are about as notable as this. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or very very weak merge to parent company article.) Does not assert notability, the article itself is full of fluff "Aria is annoyed by this but is releaved when the wind blows Isogu away." This title was apparently never released on its own in the English market, but bundled with antoher title.

What were the sales? It doesn't matter if it's been published in one or more countries. It doesn't matter if the producer is notable. (Also we should mow down the red-link farm in the parent article.) Second, if the article does stay (and it shouldn't) the article reads like a promotional ad for the video. It mentions nothing of the dissaproving reviews online begging people not to buy the video that was compared to a "mound of elephant droppings " [5] "I must learn my lesson not to expect too much variety from obviously low-budgeted h-anime." [6] --Kunzite 21:52, 30 June 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. Proto///type 14:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuuku Yuuku Yuuku

Non-notable comic, zero Googles. No assertion of notability, so delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are provided. As it stands, this soundly fails WP:V: not only zero Google hits in English, but every plausible combination of 憂苦, ゆうく, ゆーく, ユウク, and ユーク, also comes up totally blank. In short, I have made reasonable efforts to determine whether the subject of this article exists, and I am drawing a total blank, which suggests it may not.
Further suspicious points: the picture (what possible reason could there be to use a picture like that?), the article's author's revision [7] of a claim that made the lack of Google results totally implausible, and an anonymous user deciding to use his first and (to date) only edit [8] to remove my {{unreferenced}} template from the article. In short, smells suspiciously like a hoax. — Haeleth Talk 19:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete, if it smells like a hoax, looks like a hoax, its probably a hoax. Antmoney85 19:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haeleth's points ~ Matticus78 19:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Apparently a hoax, definitely nn. Tevildo 21:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat talk 22:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Likely a hoax. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V - Wickning1 05:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure nonsense. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 06:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. HotWings 18:49, 28 June 2006 (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 of the debate was delete both. Proto///type 12:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Weapons in the Resident Evil Outbreak Series and List of weapons in Resident Evil 4

Similar to the AFD on Weapons of Doukutsu Monogatari, these to articles are lists of items in a video game, and wholly game-guide content (something Wikipedia is not), including suggested use of each item and secret uses and such. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite see how it differs from the other articles in its categories (Resident Evil weapons, Computer and video game weapons, and even Fictional firearms to some extent). —Lamentation :( 07:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I guess I have a lot of AFDing to do, then. As for this article, the existence of other articles that aren't up to snuff doesn't exactly justify this one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at List of weapons in Resident Evil 4, and it has exactly the same problems and is fairly closely related, so I added it to this AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:INN. SM247 07:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. --Coredesat talk 08:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete using the Omega 19 Multi-Barrelled Deletion Ray (see my fascinating article List of fictional weapons used at Articles For Deletion. A must for mouth breathers.) -- GWO
~~Keep~~. If the article consists of too much game-guide content, remove it, but don't delete the article itself. --FrostyBytes 12:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I remove all the game-guide content, we're left with "This is a pipe" and "This is a handgun" and "This is a crutch." Not exactly encyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Among other things, that's what the article explains. It lists where the weapons are available, what their effects are, and which real world guns they're based on. I have purposefully revised edits of the RE4 weapons article in order to keep all and any game-guide content out of it.--FrostyBytes 00:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me where the game-guide content is? I don't seem to be able to spot it. --FrostyBytes 22:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It lists where the weapons are available, what their effects are,

That is game-guide content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see your point now. Delete, then. But the weapons will then need a short listing in the main article, which I feel like doing myself. --FrostyBytes 07:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Recury 13:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Resident Evil Outbreak and Resident Evil 4, respectively, as per WP:FICT. Shimmin 14:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What? A Guide? Secret Uses? I looked and they arn't none there. I Agree that the article needs shortening (This is a bent pipe etc) but Not Deleting. John Z. Delorean 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 16:37, 27 June 2006 (BST)[reply]
Keep I think it has a reason to be here. Even if it is long. And it's very useful. A must-have for all of the Resident Evil Outbreak Community. Keep it. Besides, i had also found your page for Final Fantasy VII through a search, and that page had an entire walkthrough. Keep this, Keep this, Keep this. peter piper
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. HotWings 20:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft, fancruft KleenupKrew 20:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both unencyclopedic. Good for gamefaqs.com but not here. —EdGl 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 21:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Sorry to the People who think these Articles are useful, but mere Usefulness is not a Criterion for keeping an Article, which is why this Site is not called Wikiphonedirectory. All this Information is readily available on GameFAQs, so there is no Need for us to have it here. — Haeleth Talk 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - gamecruft. Artw 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Wickning1 23:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, Not sure why people think this is a strategy guide, at the very least it should be merged into the Resident Evil 4 article, albeit in a shortened form. I don't think you can read in any strategy guide that the Red 9 was based upon a WW2 variant of the Mauser C-96 pistol or the rocket launcher was modeled after the Russian RPG 7 .--Banana! 21:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most guides on GameFAQs begin with lists of items/weapons/powerups/combos, that's why it reads like a part of a strategy guide. It sounds like the interesting information you mentioned would make a good paragraph in the main RE article.. 'Many weapons in the game are based upon real weapons, for instance...' - Wickning1 14:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It certainly needs some tweeking regarding punctuation and grammar, perhaps a shaving or rephrasing of some information, too, but this is hardly a strategy guide. Granted, it is large, and the only reason my only contribution to this page has been the addition of the names of the actual weapons these models are based on is because I'd probably end up making the article even larger if I started on the descriptions. Regardless of its shortcomings, this article is informative to those interested in the "Outbreak" series. It should be edited, not entirely deleted. Gamer Junkie 00:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both' or transwiki to a game wiki. Cruft. --Kunzite 01:50, 1 July 2006 (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 of the debate was keep. Proto///type 14:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kunio Okawara

Subject of page appears unimportant. The page has no information. It was created July 5, 2005 and no substance has been added. KarenAnn 17:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem (at least in my opinion) was that there were no categories on the article, so it was just floating out there. Categories have been added to it now, in addition to the expanded information. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I'll expand it myself. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. If it can be exxpanded to show importance, I'll change my vote. HotWings 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Still have a little more to translate, but I've expanded it a bit (still have 15 years to add). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I've translated all of the credits for shows he's worked on. Is that sufficient to show notability? It's about 30 years of work. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep now that article shows notability. HotWings 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles on the Japanese and Chinese wikipedias establish that the subject is notable, and the article can easily be expanded simply by translating from those. — Haeleth Talk 23:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable person in the anime industry. Google gives more than 20,000 hits for "Kunio Okawara". --Kusunose 23:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Haeleth and Kusunose, and length of article is not a criteria for deletion. hateless 23:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs expansion but notable person. - Wickning1 23:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Japanese and Chinese branch rulings as identified by user Haeleth.--KefkaTheClown 14:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as author has improved article considerably and I no longer think it should be deleted. KarenAnn 18:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per clean-up. --Kunzite 01:52, 1 July 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 05:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dance Dance Revolution characters

Even though I am a DDR player, I don't think this page has encyclopedia value SYSS Mouse 13:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: You may want to read this thread

Delete - agreed --Rehcsif 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep. I also love DDR, and I also think this article is (encyclopedically) worthless. -- Kicking222 16:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is completely unnecessary. There is no need for a Wikipedia entry outlining the statistics of the dancing characters featured in Dance Dance Revolution. Dj HaQ 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are pretty much no games where a list of its characters would be less relevant. I didn't even know DDR had "characters" (and no thats not a reason to keep it). Wickethewok 18:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have in earlier arcade releases in Japan and also in some console releases. SYSS Mouse 03:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. HotWings 20:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a DDR player, I must also agree that this is a worthless article. The DDR characters don't even have any backstory, unlike, say, the beatmania IIDX characters (though they don't really need an article either). --Coredesat talk 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, so we can redirect Fancruft here. I mean, delete. — Haeleth Talk 22:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haeleth. Nice one. - Wickning1 23:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 00:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs to have verifiable sources and needs to be distilled to simple core statements of facts (rather than crufty lists of trivia), but the essence of the article is worth keeping. - CNichols 20:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide etc etc etc Bwithh 22:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rubbish. +Falcon9x5 19:11, 5 July 2006 (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.

Template:Titled-click

[1] ttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm1887611/bio

[2] ttp://www.gamespot.com/features/6103845/p-2.html

[1]

[2]