Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenkaichi Budokai

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 lack of sources mean that there is no verifiable information to be merged anywhere. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenkaichi Budokai[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply an in-universe repetition of the plot of various Dragon Ball media articles plot sections. It is therefore entirely duplicative, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability shown. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I got the notification as the creator, but I didn't actually create it (just changed the name a long time ago). But this article really looks unneeded. At best, merge some info into relevant articles (if that info isn't already there). Onikage725 (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is a completely useless, utterly pointless "guideline" (more like misguiding-line) that shouldn't have any affect. Thanos6 (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a serious comment? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major part of the Dragonball setting and too large to merge. Edward321 (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary without real-world information for a non-notable fictional event which has not received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Out of curiosity, do you have any knowledge of the subject at hand, and if you do, would it be possible for you to make a statement that isn't complete, overused copypasta? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My statement is well-founded in Wikipedia policy. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Norse Am Legend was pointing at the second half of your statement, wondering how you prove a negative. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The sources are the article now are all primary, and my Google search turned up nothing useful in terms of reliable sources. Based on that, I find it unlikely that reliable, non-fansite sources have ever covered this topic in detail. Ultimately though, the burden is not to prove non-notability as items are only presumed to be notable via significant coverage in secondary sources. In other words, someone needs needs to come up with good sources or the topic is presumed to be non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of fictional martial arts. No evidence of notability (WP:N), focuses solely on events in the series (WP:WAF, WP:NOT#PLOT), major portion are fictional statistics (WP:NOT#STATS). – sgeureka ^t•c 10:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable third-party sources to establish real world notability. The article is little more then an extensive plot summary. --Farix (Talk) 11:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into appropriate Dragonball plot sections or articles. Gelmax (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding any evidence this fictional tournament has achieved notability independent of the work. As such, merge into an appropriate article about the franchise, but I leave the choice of target to those better versed in the subject. I note for the record that the wikiproject in charge of this has a clean-up effort going on focusing on the franchise's articles -- I strongly suggest that this be turned over to them to execute. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (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.