Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of items and artifacts in Negima

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. MBisanz talk 03:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of items and artifacts in Negima

edit
List of items and artifacts in Negima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

List of entirely unreferenced indiscriminate fictional items. Although there are some cleanup issues which don't factor in the nomination, it still completely fails Wp:N and WP:V. While some parts of the article may be verifiable via the manga itself, I find it unlikely there are any third party reliable sources to show notability. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No difference between this and the list of weapons in the Star Trek series, list of ships in the Star Wars, or numerous other articles, and they are considered perfectly valid. Do we hold manga to a different standard than science fiction? The length of the article I don't believe is a valid reason for deletion. If there is some parts that need cleanup, then use the talk page to discuss what you think needs to be eliminated, or do the work yourself. Add in a few tags if you see a problem you want to bring attention to. Deletion should be the last resort. Can pass the policy of WP:V by checking the manga for anything mentioned, while WP:N is just a guideline/suggestion, not an absolute law you have to follow. This article would be useful to those interested in the subject, and I don't see how anyone not interested in it would simply stumble upon it, unless they were just looking for things to delete. Dream Focus 13:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ironically, your example articles all have vast quantity's of 3rd party sources available, this does not. This isn't about what has more relevance or differing standards, it's about proving notability and verifiability. Sourcing the manga is not enough to pass Wp:V "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Sourcing the manga alone will not pass this policy. The cleanup issues are not part of this debate, and I specifically said this in the nomination. However, the referenceing issues have no been addressed in any way in well over 12 months. That is ample time to demonstrate notability and provide reliable, third party sources, yet this has not been done. A total lack of references is not a cleanup issue, it's a valid deletion reason according to policy, and the founding ideals of what wikipedia is about. Wp:N only being guideline does not make it any less relevant, it's still based on widespread consensus. Being useful to people interested is not a reason to keep, nor does it address the issues raised. This sort of content belongs on fansites or in series reference books, not a general encylopedia. Please don't bring bad faith accusations into this debate, stick to the facts. The reasons given in the nomination are perfectly valid, and you have failed to address any of them in any real way Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The List_of_weapons_in_Star_Trek only mentions what episode the weapons were first used in. So, if this article listed what manga chapter everything was in, would that be fine? Do you doubt that any of the information is accurate? The point of the notability guideline/suggestion is to help make sure nothing gets in that isn't accurate. But if that isn't in doubt, you don't need it. That's why its a guideline not a policy, a suggestion not a law. Dream Focus 15:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this debate only involves this article. Bringing up a completely unrelated outside the anime scope is both unhelpful and taking away from the issues with this one being discussed. Again, it doesn't matter if every detail is meticulously referenced to the exact page it's mentioned, without third party reliable references it's still a valid candidate for deletion in policy. You can't argue your "not law" arguement on this point. And yes, I do doubt the accuracy, it reads like complete Original Research. Without proper referencing, the accuracy will always be contested. Address the actual issues which are clearly laid out for you, and stop looking for loopholes or excuses. You aren't going to make any impact on the decision by failing to properly address common, valid arguements. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only rule left to discuss here is consensus, which is determined by whoever is around at the time to post their opinions. If it has enough fans to defend it, the article remains, if not it is removed. That's how it works. And everything from plot summaries, to character information, and whatnot, are always original research, since you getting it from what you watched or read in the media itself. So that isn't a valid argument. Tag whatever parts you don't believe are valid, with a citations needed tag, and then someone who is familiar with the series can then look through the issues and give you a reference. Dream Focus 16:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entire thing has been tagged for over 12 months. The entire article has the same issues. I can't blank the page as that will be vandalism. If something is not cited, it's not proven it's not original research. You are still looking for loopholes, and are grasping at straws. Prove to me that this article can be improved through 3rd party sources as well as primary ones."If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Until you do so, your looking for loopholes has no purpose. Please don't try to tell someone with experience in completely rewriting pages what is and what isn't Original Research. You don't even understand it yourself. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the only case you have for deleting it are guidelines, which people can choose to ignore. For years now that article has been there, lots of people editing it, far more reading it, and only a very small few seem to have a problem with it. You can delete something if it violates policy, which it does not, or by consensus. The guidelines are only a suggestion on how things should be done, they changing over time based on the opinions of a very small percentage of wikipedia users, and are not binding in any way. Dream Focus 19:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, my cases are built on policy (with supporting guidelines. guidelines are not my main arguement), and I shouldn't have to keep explaining this simple concept. Guidelines are guidelines, policy is policy. WP:V is policy, and all articles must follow it or risk deletion. Why use wikipedia when you don't agree with it's founding methodology? Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you read WP:PROVEIT? You tag something you don't believe and then someone will verify the information, or gets removed. That has nothing to do with deleting an entire article. And you don't need a third party publication. See WP:SELFPUB. I hope that clears things up for you. Dream Focus 19:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's where I got "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." from. WP:PROVEIT is a section in WP:V, which once again is policy. Although it's part of the same policy, WP:SELFPUB doesn't help you here, there are no 3rd party references for it to apply to (you've still not provided them). Manga refs are primary sources, and manga are not self published works. You're trying to argue against policy, with an nonapplicable note in the same policy. if wou want the article kept, offer valid reasons for doing so or shock! - improve the article. Don't keep rewording or scrambling for minor details to try and put a spin on the same arguement. Either source the content in a reliable 3rd party source(and if its self published, then argue Selfpub), or stop trying to counter clear policy because you disagree. If you put as much effort into fixing articles as you do to finding new and inventive wasy to waste everyones time, you might actually save some articles! Either way, I'm going to keep quoting policy as long as it's relevant, regardless of you objecting or failing to understand how afd works. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I contacted every editor that had 25 edits or more, to inform them an article they worked on was up for deletion, and ask their help in adding references, or whatever else was needed. This should be an automatic function. Its not canvassing, its informing people of something they are connected with and would want to know about. I'm not just posting around at random here. Anyone who worked that hard on an article will want to know something like this is going on with it. Dream Focus 20:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is canvassing. Saying you contacted "every editor that had 25 edits or more" is just another way of saying you contacted people who would be most likely to !vote keep. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 22:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's canvassing, it's against the rules, and it skews the process. Good luck stopping it though.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But by pointing it out, it helps minimizes the affects. And if the case is severe enough, it can be a blockable offense.--Farix (Talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If people want to be informed, they'd have the page on their watchlist. Ironically on of the main contributors (who split it into its own article in the first place) has already given his reasons for seeing the page deleted. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider myself a main contributor, I have split it pretty much only because the main article is too long, and consensus at the time is to split these articles. I do not have it on my watchlist, I was informed by the nom instead. MythSearchertalk 06:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is "List of things in [fictional work]". Some of them are magical, some are mundane, some are named, some are [character's thing], and all of them are a salad of random trivial facts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not necessarily opposed to these sorts of lists, but this is far too broad as to be manageable. Perhaps if there was a very specified guideline about what belongs in the list, or if there were some references as to why these items are notable, I would feel different. As it stands, this needs to go. AniMatetalk 00:59, 7 April 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_items_and_artifacts_in_Negima&oldid=1142220621"