Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach (anime)

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 no consensus. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach (anime)[edit]

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

There was a decision at Talk:Bleach (anime)#Proposed merge with Bleach (manga) as well as at Wikipedia talk:MOSAM#Bleach break that opposed the creation of this page as separate from Bleach (manga) per WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:CFORK but ChrisGualtieri has just gone ahead and gone against consensus to restore the page based on a single complaint made by Niemti at Talk:Ghost in the Shell. This article is superfluous to the coverage at Bleach (manga), in in direct violation of the guidelines set forth at WP:MOSAM, and is bordering on WP:POINT because he is using an AFD that closed as no consensus (see WP:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball (anime)) as the basis for his decision that the article should go forth as he and only he plans and constantly demands that discussions regarding redirecting/merging be done at AFD rather than article talk pages by citing WP:BLAR. —Ryulong (琉竜) 16:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rather than respond to his rudeness, this is a simple matter. First of all, MOSAM cannot institute its own notability guidelines as per the RFC.[1] Secondly, MOSAM doesn't say anything ABOUT this and it should not because WP:POLICY limits it to being a "manual of style". I think over 40+ references and many worldwide releases is presumption that the anime adaptation which contains a lot of original material is worthy of its own stand alone page. And I think the contentious nature of the repeated blank and redirect is clear that it goes to AFD under WP:BLAR and having it be held for the mediation which Ryulong dropped out of is not a resolution. This article can stand on N/GNG and WP:SS including both splitting and detail clauses. Ryulong wants this article to be non-existant and clearly there is more than enough information and references. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a deletion reason. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its notability cannot be adequately distinguished from the originating manga. Both are notable as a unit rather than notable separately. This split goes against consensuses formed on the two pages I stated. You cannot keep splitting pages on the basis that "it meets GNG" because all of your references that you find are simply a western view point that overly inflates the presence of the anime version rather than the manga because for whatever stupid reason the manga is always more popular in Japan and the anime is always more popular in foreign territories. That is why WP:MOSAM suggests that pages be about both forms the media takes. It cannot forbid the creation of such pages, but the fact that a bunch of editors already decided that Bleach (anime) was entirely superfluous to Bleach (manga) and there is no need to completely separate the topics because they are so heavily intertwined as it is should be the selling point as to why you should have not recreated this page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you should stop using WP:BLAR to completely disregard WP:MERGE.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOSAM does not say that though and it is not official and it cannot comment on notability per the two RFCs.[2][3] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop saying it's not official because it gets in your way.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bleach (manga), I saw no consensus for a split off here so we should form one on the respectable talk page not bring things like this to AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At 28kb WP:SPLIT suggests it and the adaptation is completely different. Perhaps you could state why the article should be merged instead of complaining about discussion pre-split. Stick to the content matter please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plot is identical. Cast and characters are identical. Discussion is identical. As I said above, the only reason there are any references critically discussing the anime is because it is exported faster and is the more popular form in Western consumption.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris I am just saying we should have a consensus in place first, this is contested so what will it hurt to have input from the community on the matter? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't merge The plot section contains two paragraphs about two different original arcs not found in the manga. The duplicate parts should be shortened, just link to the manga plot in its article. Voice cast, Production, Music, Episodes, Release, International releases, and Reception sections are all content not connected to the manga at all. So most of the article is about the anime not the manga. Reliable sources give significant coverage to the anime on its own, so it passes all notability requirements for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 17:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does description of the filler arcs really mean the anime and the manga are different though? Voice cast is what List of Bleach characters is for. Music and episodes are covered on the List of Bleach episodes articles. And Bleach (manga) was originally about both the manga and the anime. Just because the article is disambiguated as "manga" because Bleach is something that isn't a work of fiction to begin with should not be a valid reason to split an article off that would be so difficult to curate simultaneously, which is basically the only reason WP:ANIME editors came together to form WP:MOSAM and the bit of the guideline that stated "it's not a good idea to have separate articles on the anime and the manga".—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bleach (manga) should be about the franchise itself, since it has a lot of information not just related to the manga: Anime, Soundtrack CDs, Films, Musicals, Trading card game, Video games, Light novels, Other. And what is listed there about the anime, doesn't show the reception just the anime got, or other valid information found in this article. Dream Focus 17:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a franchise. It's a manga that has an anime adaptation that has films and video game adaptations. It being a franchise is an invention on Wikipedia. Tite Kubo's Bleach has never once as far as I am aware been referred to as a "franchise" up until you saying it is one right now. And the only reason Bleach (manga) doesn't show reception of the anime is because ChrisGualtieri deleted the section from the page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bleach is a franchise. Look it up in a dictionary. It is a media franchise that extends to books, anime, movies, novels, soundtracks, dramas, video games, toys and more. Not sure why you contest that. Though I'd like to point out that the anime reception should be much smaller and the movies and other deals should be on the franchise page, or if it becomes a manga centric page - removed. Either way this has no bearing on the current AFD. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again with this franchise page nonsense. These do not work for anime and manga. And really the only place reception of the movies should be on the articles for the movies themselves, if they existed. Otherwise discussion of the animated movies should be in the same location as discussion of the animated television series because of same cast, same etc.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Franchise.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Your extreme views aside; they clearly work for Harry Potter, Star Wars and countless others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Potter is a sequence of 7 books and 8 movies and god knows what else. Star Wars is two trilogies of movies and a whole bunch of other stuff. Bleach is a still published manga, 300 anime episodes based on that manga, and a bunch of films that have nothing to do with either. The way Japan treats things is different from how Hollywood does and you should not use the same terminology.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are treated the same way. Bleach is a manga, Anime, Soundtrack CDs, Films, Musicals, Trading card game, Video games, Light novels, Other stuff, including toys. American comic books get turned into cartoons, movies, games, toys, and whatnot, in the same way. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles uses the word "franchise" twice in the opening paragraph. So why would you not use that terminology? Dream Focus 18:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't think it works in the situation of manga and anime. A franchise page should be created when the subject has existed for such a long time that discussion of the whole gets in the way of discussion of its disparate parts. This has not, in my opinion, happened for various anime and manga. You can discuss the anime adaptation of Bleach alongside the original manga easily. All you have to do is say "this only happened in the anime" for shit like the Bount arc or the Captain Amagai arc and you say the anime is over and discuss the Wanderreich arc as part of the manga.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop calling things "shit" and such just because you do not like it? Your enforcement of your personal views at any cost only results in highly confusing and sparsely written pages that do not even cover the adaptations or original content. You believe that the cast and characters are useless, but these are needed for the GA. Articles must have a proper level of self contained context for their topic and scattering it to the four winds only makes readers who want to access that information unable to do so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When have I ever said I didn't like it? And there has never been this call for a separate page on the anime version of Bleach until you decided it was the best idea since sliced bread. And you are the one "scattering it to the four winds" by taking all of the anime information off of the main Bleach page. List articles have always existed so I don't know why you think that's "scattering it".—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as an unnecessary content fork. The differences are adequately covered by List of Bleach episodes and the sixteen season lists. The parent article isn't long enough to justify a split either. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to merge or delete this article. It is plenty enough notable and worthy on its own. Technical 13 (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous talk page consensus, and as an unnecessary content fork of a topic that can adequately be addressed in a single article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, WP:SPLIT makes it clear that the article's size is not a justification for splitting in this case, as anything below 40 kB would fall under "length alone does not justify division" by following the rule of thumb provided in that page. An article with just 27 kB of readable prose is not long by any standards.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What talk page consensus? The only thing that was done was edit warring to remove the page and the article is roughly 40kb as it stands right now. And half the references and a ton of content isn't even included yet! Can we please focus on why the anime is not suitable for its own stand alone article? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The size guidelines refer to the prose size and not to the size of the article's wikicode, which is not considered to be a good measure of the overall length. The pre-split prose size of the Bleach article was just 27 kB, which is well short of the 50 that would make a split advisable. It could be possible that, since you plan to add lots of content, it might be better to split the article in the future, but for now we're not really close to that point.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for clarifying that. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, but I will accept it. I must ask about the specific focus being the topic of the anime and how that proper coverage of either the manga or the anime would result in a very long and complex article. More than half the article would not be applicable to the other half if combined and if a movie can get its own article, why not a 100+ hour long series? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Since you revealed this Underlying lk, ChrisGualtieri has been bloating the article with more content.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You mean expanding the article with more valid content? Dream Focus 07:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I don't think I wrote that at all, Dream Focus.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I've just pulled more sources that I have access to. Like the "Behind the Scenes" documentary, and some academic works. I have added a good amount of necessary Kubo information and added some casting and analysis of the characters. I disagree with Ryulong's removal of the content covering Kubo's concept, design and name of the series. Especially while I am in the process of better organizing and filling in the gaps. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That information concerns the manga and not the anime. If this was a unified manga/anime article it might be valid to cover it, but since you demand that it's an anime only article it doesn't have a place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If ChrisGualtieri can add new material supported by reliable sources to the new anime article, and by doing so he expands it enough to warrant a split of the main article, it would be a happy outcome for both parties IMO. But neither does this mean that it should be expanded just for the sake of keeping them separate: this for example, is clearly a list disguised as prose.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't really be a happy outcome because he still acted against consensus to produce a page that several people previously said he should not have. The fact that he has to spend 12000 characters describing the music and soundtracks, even with half of it in a table, really shows how much padding and bloating he is adding to the article to support its splitting.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated blank and redirecting, personal attacks and robbing it of the AFD to push this consensus is silly. Not to mention the mediation matter needed all conflicts to end and this was included. Anyways, what's done is done and the community gets to decide. I'll clean up the soundtrack section. I didn't realize it was so unwieldy in that format. Ryulong, keep attacking me and calling my additions "bloating" and I'll bring it to Arb Com immediately. I see no reason that its themes, production or music should be removed. You want this article to fail. And that's bad faith. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You spent thousands of characters saying how many tracks were on each of the 4 OST disks and made a massive paragraph out of the character song albums. That's padding. And, all I did was move content to Music of Bleach because it's a better location for all of it than having a giant table on the article describing the same content.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not spend "thousands of characters" on how many tracks. You have once again removed an entire section that you should not have. It needs to be covered on this article and not "mained" out to somewhere else. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about the 4 soundtrack volumes is massive. And you of all people are mad at me for splitting off an article?—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So... WP:POINT, then? 192.251.134.5 (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I had not realized that.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bleach (manga), but only because there was no consensus in the first place to split. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Narutolovehina5's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but can no one discuss the merits of the actual issue instead of piling on this "no consensus to first split"? We have 87 sources and 111 original episodes worth of content not found in the manga and not done by Kubo. Now I'm not sure why Ryulong is removing the cast information, but I'm not seeing a merge rationale and its more fury over the fact that an RFC over its split wasn't made. Though no one seems to be questioning notability or relevancy for the adaptation. The movies are less than 1/200th as long yet something larger than the original page can't stay? Sorta seems off. An all-in-one would completely ruin both pages. I've tested it. Check for yourself if your so inclined. We can discuss the "merge" issue after this AFD closes as "keep, discuss merge", but merging the two would put it back to being splittable under size. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue still somewhat stands that anything you say about the anime is pretty much what you can say about the manga and vice versa. Unless there are sources that commend the animation or that relate solely to the storylines that occur only within the anime (or its dub) then there's no reason to really differentiate between reception of the two media.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we have that. And while the reception is one thing, what about the original arcs? What of the veteran cast and their roles? Why not be specific for articles that are specific? If you honestly believe a 150kb+ article covering the aspects of the anime and the manga and everything else is necessary - then say so. What I foresee is yet more pruning and cutting of content. At such sizes, it is not simple to navigate or comprehend. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm failing to see where this doesn't fall under WP:SPINOFF. Its WAY better sourced that most "List of X characters" that are kept around here (which, to be clear I don't actually object to either). 192.251.134.5 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with every other silly article about cartoons and comic books. I don't understand what this junk is doing on WP at all, can someone explain to me why you have to establish notability for university professors or orchestral conductors for instance but childish stuff like this gets articles?Smeat75 (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:I don't like it isn't a valid reason to delete something. Wikipedia is mostly popular culture items, and always has been. These are the types of pages that most people visit, and take time to edit and fuss about. Destroying this sort of article won't make the other articles improve any. Dream Focus 19:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that your comments are helpful to this or any situation, Smeat75. Also, judging by the nearly two hundred combined sources at Bleach (manga) and Bleach (anime) that notability has been established per WP:N.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:19, 5 November 2013 (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.