Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nen (fiction)

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nen (fiction)[edit]

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

Article dedicated to a single aspect of the fictional universe of one series, without the use of third party sources to demonstrate why it is a notable subject in it's own right. Notability can't be inherited from the series in this case. Parts of the article are basically a list of attacks, which is excessive detail and not necessary to understand the concept itself. Outside of mentioning the basic concept on the parent article, there is very little to merge. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Reviews of HxH seem to frequently mention nen. --Gwern (contribs) 18:23 25 March 2010 (GMT)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better to briefly mention it in the article about the fiction than to recapitulate everything said about it in the original fictional work to create an article like this. Appears to fails notability due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Google search results are not a convincing evidence of notability. Edison (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fundamentally, this article is not needed to understand any of the concepts used elsewhere in the article series. And beyond a few brief comments by reviewers, there has been no significant analyst of this fictional concept by reliable third-party sources. The content of the article is entirely based on primary sources—thus failing WP:V—and is of interest to a small population of enthusiastic fans—thus violating WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". —Farix (t | c) 01:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails to assert why it warrants a spin-out article from its main one. --KrebMarkt 07:10, 26 March 2010 (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.