Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Reaper (Bleach)

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 all, implemented as protected redirects. I'm trying something slightly new here. We have consensus that these are not appropriate stand-alone articles, essentially for the reasons given in the nomination. But several editors assert that the material could be usefully merged to other articles. I'm a bit skeptical about this (the only sources cited are primary sources) but there are some limited cases where primary sources may be used. To allow for limited re-use of this material (to the extent it is well-sourced and as long as there is consensus for any mergers), I am implementing the "delete" consensus not through deletion but through protected redirection to the respective "list of" articles. The redirects should be nominated for speedy deletion on their talk pages, citing this AfD, if no merger has occurred after several months or so. Sandstein 06:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Reaper (Bleach)

Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:FICT. The topic of the various "species" within the Bleach series has not "received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Extremely excessive in-universe article sprinkled with personal essay style "discussion" and OR. Redundant to the List of Soul Reapers in Bleach, which already adequately covers the topic in an appropriate fashion.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fail the same guidelines and are redundant to their respective lists:

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for the following reasons:
1. The nominator copied and pasted the nomination of another article without changing much or specifying why this specific article should be deleted
2. The nominator hasn't specified what changed from the previous 2 AfDs, which have also not been linked in this nominator (this is bad form)
3. The nomination is misleading, and only specifies 2 more articles nominated in the nom's rationale, not in the title, which it should.
If the above problems are fixed, I'll gladly provide an explanation why these articles should be kept, although the argument is similar to the other nomination. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First has been fixed. An error in the AfD is not a valid PK reason. Also, there is one previous AfD for Soul Reapers (which apparently the AfD page didn't pick up). This AfD nom has different reasons than the previous one and is perfectly valid, particularly when most of the keeps were versions of WP:ILIKEIT and acknowledge the problems now being noted here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - also, it should be noted that the previous reason for nomination (the result of which was decisive keep) was indeed very similar to the current reason, which is, insufficient out of universe coverage. This should be reason enough to remove the nomination, but it's up to the administrators. Meanwhile, I'll try to find the second nomination, which has apparently been lost among the mass of edits... -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for any administrator who may be reviewing this AfD, please note that Collectonian refactored my comment. While I assume good faith and hope it was just an accident, I think that if it turns out to be intentional, immediate action should be taken. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you assumed good faith, you wouldn't have even put a note. It got "refactored" because of an edit conflict while I was fixing the nom you were complaining about. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all quite blatantly fail WP:NOTE, WP:NOT#PLOT (and I'm sorry, Ynhockey, there's really no way I could possibly improve them that would allow them to pass NOTE). If possible, a Universe of Bleach article might be an appropriate merge target, but only after the material is heavily reduced. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per comments from Sephiroth.Tintor2 (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach if there is anything worth salvaging. Doceirias (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just leave it at the lists of characters, everything worth anything is there.StardustDragon 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft. Madman (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A transwiki to the Bleach wikia would be legit. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach, List of Bounts in Bleach, and List of hollows in Bleach. This is waaaay too much detail, but there might be something salvageable. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve The List of Bounts in Bleach merge looks fine, but the other two articles are too big to merge with their respective lists, and while they could use some trimming of particularly useless information (such as the indepth description of each character's minor uniform differences in Soul Reaper (Bleach), that would still leave them too large, especially since any consolidation of Bleach articles (which Collectonian seems to be pushing for with his latest AfD spree) would probably involve other articles being merged INTO the Soul Reaper and Hollow articles. Considering Bleach's popularity, I consider it quite likely that they have, in fact, "received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and that those sources simply need to be found. Also, doesn't Wikipedia policy state that you should try to improve articles when possible before nominating them for deletion? I wouldn't have brought this up if you'd made any attempt to discuss improving the article with WP:BLEACH (or even notified them that the article didn't meet Wikipedia standards) before putting a bunch of articles related to a popular anime up for deletion, just like you did last week. To be clear, I'm not accusing the nominator of bad faith, I'm just suggesting that when he finds articles that don't meet Wikipedia's standards, he should ask editors familiar with the content to fix the problems rather than proceeding straight to a deletion nomination. There's quite a few anime-related articles out there; WP:ANIME can't be expected to keep them ALL up to standards if no one works with them or even at least notifies them of problems. 65.33.206.108 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Ned Scott. I think that this would be the best way to go, as that would preserve info for us autoconfirmed people instead of having to be an admin in order to look at it. Also, the AFD's came too early, as there was considerable consensus for a merge, not a deletion, at this discussion, and since Wikipedia has no deadline, the nominator should have let the merges proceed. Sasuke9031 (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my mild defense, despite being a participant in that conversation, I completely forgot about it until now due to nothing having been done at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess we just kinda sat on our hands there. Still, an entire research venue for such things as fan fiction, creative writing papers, and other things mentioned in WT:FICT#Why inclusion matters is at stake here, and I for one believe that a merger would be more appropriate as revision histories should be kept for posterity, just maybe protected from editing? Sasuke9031 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge but not to the general article, but a combination article on the various species, with preservation of content and edit histories. There may be objection to it not being notable enough for an article, but there can not really be to it being relevant content. DGG (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary/listing of fictional elements of a non-notable topic which has not received significant coverage from secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to something like a Universe in Bleach along with Bounts, Hollow and Quincy or to the List of Bleach shinigami where a summary would suffice. How else would somebody totally new to the series would know about shinigami and what they do? Although the article is almost to the point of fancruft, I think some information could be used to explain what a shinigami does. Preserves the edit history as well so that information can be found, unlike a delete. This AFD is way to early.--Hanaichi 02:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment trimmed down versions of Soul Reaper (Bleach), Bount, and Hollow (Bleach) would make a good leads for List of Soul Reapers in Bleach, List of Bounts in Bleach, and List of hollows in Bleach respectively. But the level of detail currently in these articles is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Farix (Talk) 17:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The level of detail is excessive but the absolute notability is not below the threshhold for inclusion: major elements of the universe of a popular manga and anime running for several series. I also Comment to agree that the structure of this AfD is not at all clear with regard to what articles are nominated or the AfD history of each. --Stlemur (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing salvageable. You said it Dad (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it could be worked in to the character lists. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep but edit. Portions of this article can be realigned into the article on List of Soul Reapers and other articles about the Manga and Anime "Bleach." The initial section of content, however, explains effectively the purpose, duties, training and governance of soul reapers as is defined within the context of "Bleach." 11:18 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2008 (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.