Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinigami (Bleach)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 Keep--JForget 23:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shinigami (Bleach)

Shinigami (Bleach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fancruft, no real world context Pilotbob 12:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It describes the plot of a highly popular and notable anime and manga series, currently airing in America. A small rewrite may be in order, but deleting it is overkill. dposse 16:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If its only purpose is to "describe the plot" then it fails notability guidelines. See WP:NOT#PLOT.--SeizureDog 17:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dposse. Tim Q. Wells 16:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm convinced that real world notability could be shown if effort was put into it.--SeizureDog 16:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Major source of information that is necessary to understanding the anime series. True, more out-of-universe information is needed and can be included. Fox816 17:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - central for understanding of the Bleach anime and manga. It certainly does need more out-of-universe information to be included, but that is a cause for cleanup, not deletion. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Best source of Bleach information on web. No other site has the complete breakdown of the captains, courts, swords or anything other information that is interesting. The Shonen jump article listings and omake examples make the info even better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.145.142 (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even aside from its notability with regard to the series, which can be cleaned up with OOU citations, it's a significant variation among the many modern depictions of shinigami. —Quasirandom 20:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is similar in nature to dozens of other articles I've seen on Wikipedia, and if you wanted to delete it, you'd ultimately end up having to delete all of those others as well... --Dinoguy1000 Talk 21:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This describes a whole class of characters within the Bleach series. Some suggested real world out-of-universe content can focus on Cosplay. KyuuA4 22:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge and Redirect to Bleach (manga). Non-notable in-universe fanfiction, fails WP:FICT. No verifiable sources to show notability of the subject at all, just claims episodes of the TV series and issues of the manga for sourcing. While the article is far too long for a total merge, it's mostly in-universe cruft, and the relevant bits can be merged into the main Bleach article. -- Kesh 22:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:WAF, a work of fiction is a valid primary source for what happens in it, so verifiability is met. The work itself doesn't estabilish its own notability, of course, but that's a different guideline. —Quasirandom 01:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, thank you. I've amended my rationale accordingly. -- Kesh 01:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per dposse & SeizureDog (Duane543 01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep and invoke snowball. Kyaa the Catlord 01:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of the Keep comments here are WP:ILIKEIT, not based on relevant policies or guidelines. WP:SNOW would not be appropriate here. -- Kesh 01:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than the original nominator's "cruft" accusation and your merge proposal which, as below, would inflate the bleach article needlessly, we should remember that wikipedia is NOTpaper and that natural forking like this is allowed, no, it is encouraged. (Or at least had been before the recent spike of deletionist movements.) Kyaa the Catlord 06:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, the nominator's reason for deletion falls under: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. KyuuA4 08:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. There's no real-world context given at all for this article. It's nothing but in-universe info, which fails WP:N and WP:FICT. Forking is only necessary for notable content that has grown too large for the parent article, and there has been nothing put forward to show that the concept of shinigami in Bleach is notable outside the manga/anime itself. There's very little content in this article that would need to be merged to the parent article, so arguments of bloat are beside the point. At most, we would only need to keep a couple paragraphs worth of information. -- Kesh 19:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Er... why is forking "only necessary for notable content"? I'm keenly interested in the subject and don't remember seeing anything to that effect. I was under the impression that proper forks should be considered extensions of their parent articles. --Kizor 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know if it's procedure here, but I'd like to give the example of Shinigami (Death Note) with the same nature. That one is not nominated for deletion, but this one is, in spite of the abundent quantity of information. If it were to be merged in Bleach (manga), there would be either too much increase of info there or too much cutting from important info in this one. Also, as the box on the bottom shows, it belongs to one of the important groups in the manga & anime. Deleting one would mean denying the use of the others, which is a stupid effect. Also, must note that even Vizard has it's own page, which are Shinigami that gained hollow powers, and there is no problem in that article as far as I see it. Those arguments enough to avoid using iLikeIt clause? Then again, maybe it would just be useful to get logical counter-arguments then to criticize other's opinion. Trucizna 02:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is central to the story; without it means no understanding of the backstory of the anime as well as explanation of what shinigami in Bleach do. --Hanaichi 02:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Just because there isn't out-of-universe information doesn't mean that "there isn't any and it's just another article to delete". You have failed to even give the article a fair chance to do so. And either way, a large number of information is relevant to the series (I'm not saying all of it is) and must be listed, which would be very confusing to readers if they see a jumbled up source of information on the Bleach (manga) page. Still, the article's relevant information can be summed up in three good paragraphs on the Bleach (manga) page if effort is put into it. I'm not going to say keep or merge or delete, however. I'm only putting in my opinion. I am completely against having the article deleted, however, as deletion has gotten out of hand for manga and anime articles (the main reason for nearly every manga and anime deletion, including here, is I (like/don't like) it for both sides on either decision from my various searching through deletion reviews). Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 20:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has been around since October 6, 2005]. That means in two years no one has seen fit to add out-of-universe notability to the article. Saying we "have failed to even give the article a chance" is not correct. If no one can supply anything that shows out-of-universe notability per WP:N and WP:V by the time this AfD is over, I have no hopes that it will ever be shown. -- Kesh 21:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Two years? Well, since when is there a deadline? KyuuA4 06:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No deadline, but there comes a point where you have to admit the article isn't going to get any better and doesn't conform to policies. -- Kesh 14:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Does there? Honestly? Especially since we don't lose anything by having this article here as it is, just don't gain as much as we would from a better one. It might be different with the oft-mentioned biographies of living people. Oh, and in my unreasonably long stay on WP, I've noticed that two years isn't necessarily all that long for cleanup and referencing. --Kizor 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per dposse. Too large an article to merge and cleanup is more appropriate than deletion. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, "cleanup" would involve removing 90% of the material as unencyclopedic, which would also solve the "too big to merge" issue. -- Kesh 02:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's where the opinion would differ. I would agree that some of it is encyclopedic (cap uniform differences), but not enough for a worthwhile merger, much less into the main article in the series. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking in any real-world content or actual notability. Understanding Bleach's plot doesn't hinge on knowing what Kidō is or excessive descriptions of ranks. Seriously, a section on uniforms? ' 02:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oh, good grief. Like it or hate it, Bleach is the new DBZ and shinigami as important as, say, saiyans. --Gwern (contribs) 11:23 22 October 2007 (GMT)
  • Weak keep some of the content is sourced, perhaps it needs a {{In-universe/Anime and manga}} tag? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per, Gwern. This article has more references than saiyan, so why shouldn't it stay. Trainra 09:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A vital component of the coverage of a prominent subject, and works much better in that role on its own, trimmed or not. Also, I take issue with "unencyclopedic" - that's an enormously nebulous concept with no clear definition, leaving little else than personal opinions, and when used as an argument resolves to the redundant "this shouldn't be in an encyclopedia because this shouldn't be in an encyclopedia." Not to mention that we are a specialized encyclopedia. --Kizor 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable variation of shinigami and important for understanding both shinigami, and Bleach. Well-written and comprehensive, the only thing lacking are OOU citations. Considering that this is a former good article, and it's been stated that OOU citations would probably turn it into a good article because all the other criteria are filled, it's ridiculous to even suggest this article for deletion. Also Gwern makes an important point about other well-known fictional races having articles. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In my opinion, this article does not read like fancruft. It is well presented and has sufficient context for an encyclopedia article. --Squilibob 22:07, 24 October 2007 (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/Shinigami_(Bleach)&oldid=1138764396"