Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ninja anime and manga

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ninja anime and manga

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

This list fails WP:NOT as it is a repository of loosely associated topics. The list's inclusion criteria (any anime and manga with a ninja) is far too broad in scope to be of any value and there is already a pre-existing category for anime and manga where ninja are a major thematic element. The entries on the lists are clearly based on original research and the few sources the list does use are completely unreliable (fansites, blogs, wikis, other databases containing user generated data). Finally, there is no indication through reliable third-party that the general topic of ninja in anime and manga is even notable. —Farix (t | c) 21:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — —Farix (t | c) 21:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — —Farix (t | c) 21:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — —Farix (t | c) 21:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it should be stripped of all animanga which is not focused on ninja. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's really absolutely nothing new, just a split from Ninja in fiction because it was kind of dominated by this section (like, almost 1/4 of the article), as to make it more compact. I guess I oppose the nomination, but really it's not a big thing if it just goes back there. --Barry Sandwich (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm pretty sure the sources can be added, but all i did was just a split. (And I actually added a tag for ref improve.) --Barry Sandwich (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, just what is considered to be reliable sources on the subject? Because apparently even ANN and IMDb are not. That is, besides the official websites. (I ask because I might write some anime/manga stuff and not just about video games.) --Barry Sandwich (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with IMDB is that it is user edited. You, I or my fifth cousin twice removed could have added content there meaning there is little editorial oversite. Regarding ANN, I assume that you are talking about the enclopyedia section of that site and not the main sectiomn. That has the same problem as IMDB, as in it is user edited with little oversite either. The news section however, is not user submitted so their news coverage and or reviews can be used.--76.66.185.169 (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you want to have a rough idea of reliable sources, you can look at GA or FA articles from the anime/manga project group. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough coverage in reliable third-party sources of "Ninja anime/manga" .--Anthem of joy (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. As expressed there, the article that falls into what Wikipedia is not, by being a list of loosely associated topics. Jfgslo (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2011 (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.