Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Items in Ranma ½

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. While numerical majority in AfD debates is a factor, it is not a sole factor. In this case, the questions of verifiability and original research have not been addressed, nor does it appear that they can be. This being the case, we cannot have such an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Items in Ranma ½[edit]

This 35KB article is merely an unsourced plot summary. Fails WP:FICT, WP:V, WP:WAF and so on. Precedent exists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Items and concepts in FLCL. Also has 27 fair use images, which may also fail WP:NONFREE. Content is too excessive for merging. MER-C 05:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely fails WP:V with no sources. It looks like just a bunch of OR. If there is a manga wiki, maybe it should be transwikied over there. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There hasn't been 1 complaint till now and you go immediately to delete?! Not one edit by the nominator and the page is a relatively recent creation and can easily have sources added. This is not OR, as any person reading the manga/watching the anime can see these things. To call it OR is ridiculous and means everything about fiction is OR. It's also now heavily used by other R ½ pages for context.Derekloffin 06:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you intend on fixing the problems raised? I don't believe they can be fixed, so that's why it's here. And saying that there is sources ain't enough, you actually need to produce them. MER-C 08:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources can be added (how you can possibly believe it is impossible to reference Ranma ½ is beyond me), plot summaries trimmed if too heavy, mergers done as necessary. That you out of hand discount these most simple things makes me further think you didn't even try to consider remedies in any serious fashion. The complete lack of complaints, tags, edits of any kinds on your part, or warnings, is just further proof of this. Not even giving us the opportunity to address them and immediately jumping to delete without a single notice of a complaint isn't even the remotest attempt to allow correction. Effectively, all you have done by putting up this notice is strongly discourage edits for a week instead of giving editors the complaints and letting them attempt to address them. This is particular evident as even your example delete gave those authors MONTHS of notice of an issue. You gave none. This article is barely 2 months old by this point and hasn't had the chance for significant review. You are supposed to provide discussion on the issue, again none before this delete attempt. I consider this particularly heavy handed and a misuse of the deletion policy. Derekloffin 09:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a bureaucracy. I will not unnecessarily jump through hoops or mess with red tape to get crappy articles deleted. Like it or not, this is a significant review of the article. You have the opportunity to address the fatal concerns raised, if they can be addressed.

And stop shooting the messenger and start fixing the problems. MER-C 12:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I do not think that AfD is best place to resolve these issues. Of course, this article need to be attributed and to follow our policies and guidelines, but not by deleting the whole article. Carlosguitar 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the whole article violates the policies and guidelines above, hence it ought to disappear. MER-C 08:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mmm... crufty Whs itc hy 14:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but modify based on the recommendations presented to bring it up to par: rewrites, attribution, establishing notability, etc. --BrokenSphere 19:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would definitely add another vote for keeping it. It complements the context of many other articles in the section, as a reference and entertainment source for afficionados of the series. The main problems you've cited above could easily be addressed with a single chapter reference for each item, and possibly some shortening down of the plot details. Give it some time and it should clear up fine. Dave 11:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 19:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does need to be cited, but it should not be compared to Items and concepts in FLCL which was littered with original research. This article on the other hand can be easily cited with the manga and anime. (Duane543 01:38, 10 June 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.