Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Naruto 2

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. Sango 123 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of weapons in Naruto[edit]

This article has already been nominated once and quickly deleted with no keep votes. Reasoning remains the same and can be found at the original discussion page. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No one would find this list useful, and I don't see why we allow similar lists for so many other animes and other forms of entertainment. Gary 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is not important even within the anime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Small black sun (talk • contribs)
Delete Its a list of what kind of ninja star a given character uses. What next, a list of who uses what color lightsaber? I like the well done encylopediac fan stuff but this is silly. rootology (T) 00:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list isn't even remotely useful but it may be an artifact of redlinks that weren't cleaned up after the previous AfD. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 02:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe the article can ever be encyclopedic, no matter how well written. - Wickning1 03:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 04:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD should probably be renamed "List of weapons in Naruto (2nd nomination)" to avoid confusion with a different potential article. --SevereTireDamage 04:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 06:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shouldn't this be speedied as Recreation of deleted material? --Thatdog 07:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't anywhere close to the orignial content that was deleted, so that critera for speedy deletion doesn't apply. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Thatdog. Needn't go through AfD. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 09:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on its own nonexistent merits as a fragmentary game guide; Speedy delete as a recreation assuming that's true. --Stellmach 13:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Peephole 15:56, 4 August 2006 (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.