Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball name puns

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. The keep commenters provide little substantial rebuttal to the allegation of WP:OR. Existence of these terms within the anime itself doesn't qualify as a reliable, third-party source usage, so that point is trivial. Xoloz 01:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon Ball name puns[edit]

Nonencyclopedic fancruft. —tregoweth (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and original research. It might be worth a mention in List of Dragon Ball characters or in Dragon Ball should the authors find proper sources confirming the puns were intended. SliceNYC 21:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft, uncyclopedic, also violates WP:V and WP:OR Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Puns and humor have a significant part in Toriyama's works, because every name is a pun. The article isn't "unsourced", since every names and puns are in the original manga/anime. And of course, the puns were intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folken de Fanel (talk • contribs)
- Comment Though the puns may seem obvious, with the language difference you can never be too sure. When in doubt, cite. SliceNYC 03:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Good point, SliceNYC. The puns seem quite obvious, but hardly can be verified while they are only in the author's brain. I don't know how to verify, for example, from what he created the name "nappa". If someone has this japanese book (ISBN 4088737024), it can be a good reference, however, using it for this kind of article would not be a fair use. I understand the feeling of Folken de Fanel, but it seems almost impossible for this article to satisfy both verifiability and fair use. --LittleTree 21:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Folken de Fanel's comment. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 01:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tsdng96 06:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SliceNYC's comment. Despite Folken's mistaken belief, the article most certainly is uncited, and it's easy to prove this by observing the simple fact that there are no citations. To say "this name came from this word", where the name is not actually identical to the word, is research, and if uncited must be assumed to be original research, and we cannot include original research in Wikipedia. Additionally, the list is unnecessary. Characters' names should be explained in the article or section on the individual character, and the characters themselves are presumably already listed in other DB character lists; there is no need for this.
If kept, note that this needs serious cleanup, both to remove inaccuracies and to remove the often indiscriminate wikilinking of common words to irrelevant articles. — Haeleth Talk 09:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haeleth's wonderful explanation --Kunzite 22:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Folken
Keep per Folken, or, preferably, merge to the characters' articles themselves. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 22:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per SliceNYC and Jaranda. Aristoi 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per Folken or merge into the various articles. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:40, 11 September 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.