Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinigami (Bleach) (2nd nomination)

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shinigami (Bleach)[edit]

Pure fancruft and WP:Plot regurgitation that fails WP:FICT with WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations as well. Description of Bleach shinigami versus general meaning already covered in the appropriate detail in List of Bleach shinigami and Bleach (manga). Collectonian 04:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom. Plot information, not notable, insufficient third-party sourcing. Could this be merged anywhere? - Rjd0060 05:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could maybe be merged into List of Bleach shinigami or Bleach (manga). I did move over the intro stuff and incorporated it into the List of already, but I think the all of the essential details are already in the latter. Collectonian 05:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Reason - what User:Collectonian stated above, I don't think it should go so far as to be deleted, but merged into List of Bleach shinigami is a must per WP:FICT and WP:PLOT. Sasuke9031 05:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article aids in the understanding of the subject, and the NPOV/OR claims would need some kind of example. I see nothing that falls under those, nor would such violations be delete worthy unless they were all-encompassing. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep in theory this could be merged into another article, however, all or most of the information in this article is notable and therefore it wouldn't be practical to merge it per WP:SIZE. Also, the article is vital to understanding both the series Bleach, as well as shinigami in general. Most of the good reasons for keeping (and some weak delete arguments) have been already covered here. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. — Quasirandom 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Great article, but its in the face of Wikipedia policy. Bleach is one of the ten most popular pages here, but this is OR, with no showing of real world notability, and written in an in-universe style. I personally like it, but I can't make it pass muster under WP:FICT. Additional comment. Having said all that, 6 weeks is pretty quick for a 2nd AfD. I know WP:CCC but I am concerned that we are destined to go through this process endlessly until we iron out exactly how WP:FICT applies to episodic programs. Xymmax 16:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry on the short time frame, I hadn't seen the other AfD notice until after I'd already submitted. Collectonian 18:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Collectonian was not in the wrong to nominate the article 6 weeks after because the first nomination was made by a known deletionist-class vandal and so this is the first true nomination. Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I noticed, that nomination went through the procedure without being pointed this matter. Isn't this bending the rules in the favor of multiple nominations? If by some chance, the vote would have turned for deletion, would that user's mania had been taken into account? This seems wrong to me on so many levels. If this turns out for keep, I'll be passing by next week to vote in the possible next future nomination, with the reason this was made by a vandal. Trucizna (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a "true" nomination, nor is Pilotbob a deletionist vandal. Don't make assertions that have no basis in reality. He may be a foolish deletionist who bit off a bit more than he could chew, but that's about it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seeing as some of the content in List of Bleach shinigami's lead sections was copied/adapted from material in this article, deletion is an impossible outcome; GFDL compliance necessitates that the authors' contributions be preserved. ~Snapper T o 22:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then a delete outcome would result in a wikideletion and redirect. Not a huge practical difference. --Gwern (contribs) 01:02 5 December 2007 (GMT)

Keep. I don't buy the OR arguments - there's nothing in there not from various Bleach material or not an obvious inference away. --Gwern (contribs) 01:01 5 December 2007 (GMT)
Obvious keep Deletion is not a replacement for cleanup. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Xymmax's thought. I don't see the possibilty for secondary information either. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is referenced in many places and I'm positive more references could be made. Any OR can be cleaned. I don't agree that it is in violation of WP:Plot and WP:NPOV. As for the WP:FICT, the article tries to meet the guideline in the lead section. (Duane543 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Not satisfied with the reasons for suggestion. If keep is impossible (which it isn't), then merge to Bleach (manga); too much important information to delete. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:It seems well written and explains the topic so people unfamiliar with the universe can understand it. It shouldn't be merged with List of Bleach shinigami since all the information explains what the shinigami not who they are. The merge of the two pages would also end up too large.--Animefan2 (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Animefan2. The article may need a major rewrite, but deleting it is overkill. dposse (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As I said the last time, there is too much valuable information just to be removed or redirected; merging it with other articles would inflate them too much.Trucizna (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The level of detail here is excessive fancruft and there is certainly no need for TWO articles to cover it (there is also List of Bleach shinigami). This minutae of detail belongs in an anime wiki or a Bleach specific wiki. It is not encyclopedic and it fails WP:FICT. The first few paragraphs can be used to describe Shinigami in either the List of Bleach characters or the main Bleach article. It would not glut the article at all, when done properly and with the excessive details culled down. Collectonian (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could the nominator please give an example of what is supposedly NPOV about this article? And what OR violations are being seen? —Quasirandom (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, prove none of it is OR. There are only 18 cites, mostly from the manga. Point me to the exact source for every thing listed under training, combat, mission aids, etc. Show me where in the anime or manga it specifically says, for example: "Kidō (鬼道, Kidō? lit.demon path) are a type of sorcery used by shinigami. They can be used for various purposes, such as healing, attacking, and restraining. Healing seems to be a more general skill, while attacking and binding require an incantation to be recited beforehand". For NPOV, here is one statement "A squad in Gotei 13 should not be confused with a division. A captain (taichō) leads a division, while squads (units of 10 or so troops) are led by a seated officer, possibly as low as a 20th seat. This is further complicated by the official English dub, which labels divisions as squads." It isn't cited and appears to be an editor's guess or comment based on their translation of the original Japanese and their view of English dub. Unless a source can be cited to actually show the Viz dub is wrong, it should be considered the expert over a random editor (or worse, fansub) idea. Collectonian (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need on Wikipedia to cite every single sub-sentence if the sentence includes undisputed general information - for example, in order to source every factoid in the sentence you provided, you'll need at least 6 sources (1 -> kido is a magic used by shinigami; 2 -> they can be used for healing; 3 -> attacking; 4 -> restraining; 5 -> healing seems to be a more general skill; 6 -> attacking and binding require an incantation), and this is really not necessary if none of the information is disputed, although with some effort, I could source all 6 separate facts.

Regarding the note at the bottom, it's a note not about the general term, but about Wikipedia's use to avoid confusion. Viz labels them as squads, (and real squads as groups) in the anime, but the same Viz labels them as companies in the official English manga, therefore there is already some confusion and no 'official' term. Wikipedia is in no way bound to use the official term per WP:COMMONNAME, which in this case is clearly 'division'. Therefore, a note is needed to explain the usage and prevent confusion for readers less familiar with Bleach, especially its Japanese version. If however the Viz anime term of squad would be used, then a note would be necessary explaining how these 'squads' are not really squads, but consist of at least 200 shinigami each (this can be sourced).

Lastly, the fact that you haven't answered my concern on your talk page, and have instead quickly archived it (and deleted a second request for answer), suggests that you are a deletionist of the same class as the previous nominator.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--How do you use the strike out thing again because I want to change my vote. Sasuke9031 (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per there's tons of notable information in there, any OR coulp be changed, deletion is not a substitute for cleanup and per this ANI incident and the concerns addressed there. Sasuke9031 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 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.