Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mo Dao Zu Shi

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 procedural keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Mo Dao Zu Shi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The theme of the page is the same as the Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation, these two pages should delete one of them or merge them. Rastinition (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Both the donghua and the novel are both clearly notable on their own, and there is so much information on both that including them in a single page will make the page cluttered and more difficult to organize and navigate. Chagropango (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyways, before logging off, I am in agreement with the person above me.

  Raising this point again:

  There are numerous differences between the original novel and the donghua, which is an adaption for it to share the same page.They both deserve their own pages,as having them under the same pages will make it contradictory. The original novel is uncensored and its plot reflect that while the the donghua in this page is under censorship so it is reflected in the plot.

  Many other popular fiction have difference pages for the source material and its adaptions.A Song of Ice and Fire has its own page dedicated to the novel and there's a separate page for its TV show Games of Throne. Same with Tolkien's books and adaptions.What makes their pages different then ours? They should also be considered if going by your view. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator seems to only want to WP:MERGE the two articles together, which is not done through AfD. I note that the other article the nom noted is also AfD'ed by the nom for the same reason, which can lead to major inconsistencies (what if the consensus on each AfD is to keep only the other one?). Jumpytoo Talk 08:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The novel and the donghua has enough difference in plot and also in in their own medium based- details (donghua page as info on OSTs, VAs, artists and etc.) that wouldn't make sense to merge into one single page. This is enough to warrant them their own separate page. Also, as people have stated above, it will lead to inconsistencies and difficulties navigating. KanaWX (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not sure if bolded keep is important so coming back to do that. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Coming here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation, I'd like to point out that AfD is the discussion venue for deletion, and not content issues such as merging or reference cross-checking. If there are content issues, they should be resolved via the article talk page, and not through AfD. Given that both the novel and the animation meet WP:GNG, and the nominator mentions content merging as the primary reason for this AfD nomination, I'm inclined to believe that this is not exactly an appropriate use of AfD. There are no grounds for article deletion, which is the purpose of raising AfD discussions. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:08, 21 November 2022 (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.