Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tien Shinhan

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 Don't delete. Whether and where to merge can be discussed on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tien Shinhan

Tien Shinhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable fictional character with no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. Was merged to List of Dragon Ball characters[1] per a larger merge discussion, but it was felt that the merge was against consensus and one demanded that the article be "properly" taken to AfD for "real consensus" so now doing so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The source in the Reception section describing the character as a "fan favorite" is suggestive that more can be found. I'm not immediately finding it on a cursory search, but I'll withhold !voting pending further research. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that source is from a fansite and certainly not a reliable source. It probably shouldn't even be linked to at all considering the amount of illegal copyrighted material on it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tien should be deleted because nobody who doesn't live in Japan really cares about him. And people only like him because he beat Goku in the tournament, but that was only because Goku got hit by a car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBZFAN88 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Dragon Ball articles in general had their chance to demonstrate notability, other than the obvious characters (Goku et al.) none of them really have. And DBZFAN88 needs to stop posting nonsense. JuJube (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to keep: Logical_Premise's sources, supplimented by the one reliable source mentioned by JJJ999m, sufficiently demonstrate notability. If these, or sources like them, had given been before the vitrol, this would have been a much politer discussion. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, with about zero effort I found a nytimes article. There are also clearly books on the subject matter. Lastly a main character from a book that sells hundreds of millions of copies, is marketed en masse with action figures, videos, etc, is obviously notable. With time and effort do you really doubt sources could be found, especially by those who have better access to Japanese sources? A merge makes no sense, especially as information can't be added to a redirect!JJJ999 (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New York Times reference is a skeleton summary of a Dragon Ball episode that has nothing more than Tien's name in the title. That is not significant coverage, which is required per WP:NOTE. There has been no notability asserted, and if it was easy to find, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. And your comment about the merge is nonsense, as the material would be merged into List of Dragon Ball characters and then the page would be turned into a redirect. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 00:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Sephiroth says: the New York Times link doesn't establish the notability of the character. Hits in themselves are not enough -- they have to be quality hits. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and condemnation of Collectonian and his posse. I am going to report this to several mods. You did not even notify the talk page where discussion is ongoing as to this article, and where consensus is in favour of keeping it. It's yet another submarine edit. The arguments for it's noteability have been covered long ago, and every time Lord S does this, he's hit down. He was hit down on Cell in AfDs, he was hit down on Krillin, Roshi, Bulma, and now he's trying to subvert the discussion he started, just because it didn't go his way. Disgusting.
Cell is alot less notable than Tien, who has been around for 32 books in the Manga, and is a feature character in a series that has sold hundreds of millions of copies. Here's how the Cell vote went (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cell_(Dragon_Ball) This one should be even clearer, and frankly if you had notified the talk page it already would be. The claim there are no real world sources for Tien is insane, and shows you aren't even interested in trying. The millions of G-hits he gets is the first clue, the application of common sense is another. He is not notable in the sense that G.Bush is notable, but he clearly meets the notability for a fictional wikipedia character. I am reminded of the argument Viperix posted here which you never got back to about, which showed you didn't even understand what OR is or how it works(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muten_Roshi)

There is stuff like this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1168073/ that is effortlessly found with a google search, or this http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dragon_ball_tien_shinhan_box_set/, or http://www.amazon.com/Dragon-Ball-Fortune-Teller-Shinhan/dp/B0019AGF2M, or http://www.tv.com/dragon-ball/tiens-atonement/episode/243813/summary.html or http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_item.asp?item_id=459698&site_id=4&site_media_id=2 or http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/301819/DragonBall-Yamcha-vs-Tien/overview, and that's without even trying. I suppose the NYtimes and such isn't "notable". you guys are wilfully blind to the guy with millions of google hits. He also pushes misleading searches- stuff can be found using the slightest variation on his words here; http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&q=%22Tien%22+dbz and here http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Tien%22+dragonball but Lord S doesn't do searches that might reveal info, he does the ones that won't, also evidenced here http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Tien%22+dbz , so with the merest of effort many sources can be found. These guys just don't want to find them. there are even some for scholar! http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Tien%22+dbz Assumedly with all these new sources, he'll change his mind. But he won't, because he is committed to deleting all DBZ pages, no matter what sources are found. If I can so easily find NYtimes articles and movie reviews and multiple novels about the subject matter, a subject matter that has sold hundreds of millions of books in one country alone, then it becomes absurd to suggest such a pivotal character doesn't gain notabilityJJJ999 (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a giant banner on the top of the article. If that isn't a notice, then I can't help you. And stop your threats of "reporting this to mods", as no administrator is going to do anything to aid you in the manner that you want. In any case, AfD supersedes any local consensus on the article, so it's irrelevant what the local editors think (who are welcome to comment on this AfD, although if you canvass, it will not be taken kindly). And per previous comments I've made with you, there is no notability asserted as Wikipedia treats it, and not your vague notion of importance. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not meant to be condescending, but JJJ999, your efforts to "save" this article will be more effective by adding real-world information to the article than by getting into unfocused discussions in an AfD. By the way, IMDb, amazon reviews and tv.com are unreliable and cannot be used to establish notability. – sgeureka t•c 08:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources and searches I link to do establish it.JJJ999 (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs certainly do supercede the consensus, but only someone of exceptional naivety could believe he had notified the talk page. I am going to notify interested parties myself since he has not done so. It is complete folly to believe that Lord shess and Collectionian haven't privately canvassed the merge voters, especially given the way previous discussions on these matters have gone (namely that they have consistently been defeated in AfDs and merge discussions). It is not "canvassing" to tell interested parties who should have been notified on the merge pages that Lord S and Coll are trying to circumvent it again. The "weight" the mod closing gives to this is up to them, I feel confident they will not allow you guys to circumvent againJJJ999 (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All your edits are canvassing, as this is clearly not neutral, nor are your messages neutral in any fashion. Collectonian is not required by any means to advertise the AfD; the fact that there is an AfD is blatantly clear to anyone interested in the article. There is also zero evidence that Collectonian or Sesshomaru have canvassed anyone, and your lack of good faith here is rather disgusting. Note to closing administrator. Note the canvassing by JJJ999 to various editors: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Say what you like, but those people have all been engaged in good faith editing and trying to get to consensus on the talk pages for weeks and months, and you have turned around and nominated it for an AfD without even mentioning as much on the merge discussion which you were losing. Canvassing implies that the majority and arguments aren't on my side. They are, and that's why these guys keep losing AfDs and merge discussions. They should have been notified.JJJ999 (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How much effort they put into the article is irrelevant. And no, canvassing does not imply anything about a "majority" or a "minority". Canvassing is specifically non-neutral messages to editors catered to a specific point of view, which you just did. If they wish to participate in the discussion, they are free to do so, but canvassing is not acceptable in any circumstances. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are wrong, and I feel confident in the way the discussion will be seen in the end. Nobody was looking at Tien's user page, which is why there has been editing on the merge discussion in the last few days, but nobody had noticied this AfD, because people were discussing on a merge page on the list discussion, not on the Tien talk page, and the discussion had long moved past reading the content, and was now about upholding the consensus. The decision to not notify the merge discussion about your AfD is unfortunate to say the least.JJJ999 (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...your logic is bogus. Anyone who is watching the talk page is watching the page itself, and thus would be fully aware of the AfD discussion. Ergo, anyone who has a vested interest in the page already knows about the AfD, and your messages are canvassing all the way. You've actually done yourself a disservice, as canvassed !votes are treated with much less weight by the closing administrator, but consensus as it stands appears to be fairly clear. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because the talk page is on the list of character talk page, not the tien talk page. And also because the discussion was no longer about the content, because the consensus was for notability. The issue was upholding that. For Lord S to turn around without even telling the merge discussion (except the elements he likes privately perhaps), and to begin an AfD while people awaiting his response to the consensus against him, is inconsiderate to say the least. Notifying the people who don't know, but were involved in those discussions, is only good manners.JJJ999 (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notion that someone editing the Dragon Ball articles doesn't have all of the related pages on their watchlist is laughable to say the least. And no, it's not "good manners" to place an obviously non-neutral message on ten or so editors pages of this AfD, it's canvassing. That you persist in your bad faith allegations against Sesshomaru with no corroborating evidence whatsoever is also rephrensible and rather repulsive. Even this is ignoring the obvious problem that you've provided absolutely nothing that aids the article in meeting WP:NOTE, and that you probably can better your cause by trying to find sources that have significant coverage rather than wrecking your credibility here. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are more of a canvassed vote frankly given your past defending these 2. This is a notified vote of someone who was previously engaged in good faith editing and discussions, and who Lord Shes is trying to screw by bypassing. Do you really expect the closing admins to believe that it just is luck that only those who support these 2 were here for the first 2-3 days, when they are in the minority. Get realJJJ999 (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to amaze me with your unsubstantiated statements. First, I cannot be a canvassed !vote because I was never informed of this discussion (I don't even have the page on my watchlist). Next, any closing administrator is going to see a swath of !votes that were garnered because you left a non-neutral message on their talk pages (to users you specifically know would !vote "keep" on the article), and more or less disregard them. That there !votes are nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT opinions doesn't help your cause either. AfD is not counting heads, but rather considering arguments, and until you provide sources that assert notability, then you're not making any headway here. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply untrue, I notified whitearticwolf, and he's voted for merge. These people all needed to be informed because it is obvious you were sidelining themJJJ999 (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JJJ999, you better knock it off right now. Are you trying to incite me? I have not initiated any deletion discussions on Dragon Ball-related pages yet you keep trying to put me in the blame of it all. STOP IT NOW, and please, leave me alone. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have done no more than repeated what I already said, plus the white wolf comment. If you are asking whether I believe you and Colleconian are tag teaming, obviously something is going on there, because you guys have posted back and forth on each others talk pages during this whole process, and you have a history of AfDing these articles (unsuccessfully), while Collectonian has a history of attempting to merge these articles (unsuccessfully). It pretty much speaks for itself.JJJ999 (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not notable enough for a separate article. Don't let the number of non-primary sources fool you; many of them are unreliable and are used to source in-universe information that may as well be sourced from the mangas themselves. This AfD is also a perfect negative example of the fan enthusiasm that makes policy- and guideline-based discussions/negotiations on an article's talkpage impossible. – sgeureka t•c 08:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This character was a major villain and major character later on. Reliable sources could be found if one wants to find them. I will try do something on it, although some users are trying to stop it. SSJ 5 (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep How pathetic, people are thinking of merging this or deleting this. You forget that Tien Shinhan is one of the main and major characters of DBZ. Why don't you delete Yamcha all together, eh? How can you ever think of deleting it? It would be stupid to delete it, and even if you do, I'll just put it back on. Piccolo The Demon King (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hilarious Keep - I love Anime AfD's, where people toss out all the common sense, WP:RS , and WP:CIVIL and go right for the vitriol. Okay, let's do this one by the numbers. I *hate* anime with a passion and even I know who Tien is, IIRC he used to be the Evil Bad Guy until he did a turn and became one of the gang, or something like that. There are sources found in "The Encyclopedia of Japanese Pop Culture (ISBN 0834803801, 9780834803800) on this particular character. It's mentioned again in "500 Manga Heroes" (ISBN 1843402343, 9781843402343) on pg 335 as "influential to the series" with a short entry on the character. And yet again in "Anime Explosion!: The What? Why? & Wow! of Japanese Animation" on page 60 and 61 with some details about the drawing and meanings of various outfits and what not. Now , the problem is that these sources aren't in some news story. You're not going to get major news coverage in most cases about this. But it's clearly notable to the genre, even if it's a bit hard to put sourcing together for it. I'd say keep it and everybody -- merge, delete, keep voters -- need to calm down, chill out, and relaaaaax. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 19:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I own Anime Explosion and Tien Shinhan is NOT mentioned on pages 60 and 61. Those pages discuss the attitude of sex in manga and then moves into talking about a monk from Konjaku Monogatri. There is nothing about Dragon Ball, nor this character there at all. In fact, Dragon Ball is only mentioned on three pages at all and NONE of those mentions are about this character. Others who actually own those other two books may want to check those sources...however 500 Manga Heroes and Villains is Google searchable, and it also does not support this character being in there, and checking the index of The Encyclopedia of Japanese Pop Culture shows nothing for Dragon Ball either. So...where did you find these sources exactly?-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Last time I checked, AfDs weren't votes. Just because a user's been notified of a discussion it doesn't make their opinions on the matter any less valid. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Without the necessary coverage in reliable sources, this does not need a separate article. TTN (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: There isn't enough real world info for it. If someone can dig up information, then it can be added back. I honestly don't know why any report was left on my Talk page--I haven't been working on DB at all, either, except for some cleaning up the Yamcha article and putting in my vote for merges. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote. LogicalPremise found some perfectly good sources and was willing to show the links for their ISBNs. The question is whether or not the rest of the community will be willing to use these books to claim notability. I for one am convinsed, especially by the links. Changing to keep based on that. Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my note above. At least one of those sources has been shown to be a false claim. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources have been given, you guys continue to ignore it and clamour for a merge because you're determined to kill it against all evidence.JJJ999 (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: these procedures of AfD are completely WRONG. Discussions regarding the merger of the characters' articles into the List of characters have not finished. You cannot ignore other discussions and begin a new one without finishing and getting consensus from the original one. You must not ignore what people in the Merge discussions have expressed. I will ask an admin to close this discussion with No Consensus as result as we have not finished the previous one yet. --LoЯd ۞pεth 23:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't correct and the merge discussions were completely derailed with JJJ999 being the first to demand that the merged articles be taken to AfD and now he's claiming that's "submarine tactics" as well. If folks in the merge discussions want to express themselves, they can come here and do it...oh, wait, they all already have thanks to JJJ999's mass canvassing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm is not a good way to approach other editors. Also, everyone has the right to express their opinion and vote. I have requested mediation from the Mediation Cabal, rather than asking the discussion to be closed. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are insults and blatantly false accusations, but I don't see you chastising JJJ999. This isn't a vote, and anyone involved in the initial merge discussions WAS notified by JJJ999 per his canvassing efforts (as per an admin, he was canvassing), so there is nothing secret here at all. Nor is this discussion somehow invalidated by a merge discussion that stopped any real progress, nor does a talk page discussion supercede an AfD. It was very obvious those opposing the merge were not basing their discussions in actual policy and guidelines, but their preferences for the character and his role in the series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Look, the "notability" JJJ thinks he's asserted is a bunch of Google hits to fansites and completely unrelated shit that doesn't do anything for the article. I understand that you're angry that we don't want an article on a character as worthless as Tien, but don't try to worm your way out of things by claiming that it's a capitalist plot and Sephiroth and Collectonian are out to get you. Wikipedia is not the Matrix, and even if it was it wouldn't change the fact that no matter how many "keep" votes you get your friends to post on here, it won't change the fact that the article fails all WP:FICT guidelines and by definition must be merged. Suigetsu 00:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Ad hominem attacks suck
2. You haven't provided notability
3. Have a nice day Suigetsu 13:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 thing- read. That is all.JJJ999 (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits are not notability. Most of them don't even have anything to do with Tien. The only other thing you've said of value is that you want the Mediation Cabal to somehow make WP:NOTE and WP:VERI disappear. Sorry, but that won't happen, and it doesn't matter how soon or late the AFD started, either. There is no "due process," if there is some question as to whether or not the article has enough notability you make an AFD and discuss, if there is no notability at all you freaking merge it. BUT IT'S OKAY, because as you claim, you've done nothing but "repeat yourself" and canvass people who don't understand how Wikipedia works -- not unlike yourself -- and think that you can actually save the article by attempting to convince people that your little articles have not been given "due process" or whatever. Suigetsu 22:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JJJ turned it into a flame fest when he realized he couldn't win arguing on WP:NOTE alone, and promptly changed his arguments from that to "it's a conspiracy, seshomaru sephiroth and colectonian are out to get me, the mediation cabal will surely negate WP:NOTE for me." Suigetsu 02:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the discussions. Finger-pointing doesn't help either. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer I lie and say it's Collectonian's fault for wishing to merge/delete an article that fails notability? Either way, "valid arguments about the AFD" (god forbid we talk about the AFD on the AFD page, you know) don't seem to matter any more, since the discussion seems to have shifted to the Mediation Cabal case page. Or something like that. Suigetsu 02:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that there's no point in finger-pointing. I can read and I know who started what, so there's no point in emphasising. As far as I'm concerned, the discussion is here, and not at the Mediation page, since there's still no mediator, and that the mediation is on a slightly different issue. I'm currently waiting on the verifiability of the above books before giving my !vote; verification by someone who has the book and can say which part of the book explicitly gives notability to this character -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collectonian already did that, I think. Suigetsu 02:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One has already been unverified (I can scan in all of the pages discussing DB if desired). As the original noted as not replied to the concerns, I'm inclined to disbelieve the other two. I can check the 500 Manga Heroes if desired, but I've looked at it before and found it a fairly useless source for most characters as it mostly just gives a short summary of their role in a series and often with mistakes. It rarely says "why" they are a top character. I've asked at the Anime and manga project to see if anyone has either book, though, to see if the information can actually be confirmed. If there isn't an answer within 24 hours, the local university library has the The Encyclopedia of Japanese pop culture and I can go check it as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Please let us know of any results. I believe the result of this discussion will depend heavily on what can or cannot be verified by these two books, which are claimed to provide notability. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm heading to Barnes and Noble tomorrow to pick up D. Gray-man tankoubon, and they have the 500 Manga Heroes book. I'll check in it and see if there's anything worth mentioning. Suigetsu 02:54, 9 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tien_Shinhan&oldid=1088722276"