Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 17

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: obviously and unfortunately no consensus. Cleanup or merge would seem to be good compromise choices. - Yomangani^talk 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon Ball special abilities and others

• A Must Keep - The Kamehameha wave has become a universal icon and inspiration to the world of modern art and animation. As Western culture and practices become ever more influenced by methods and aesthetics of the East, the significance of the Kamehamehe wave is increasingly noticeable. I find that most arguments made against the inclusion of this definition stem from a disdain for "fans" or people who possess a zealous interest in the particulars of artistic expression (particularly television programs). Ultimately, this article is completely valid and factual in that it accurately represents a term employed in the program referenced, therefore such definitions are factually based, and factually based information, however trivial some may feel it to be, is indeed knowledge. Those who seek its removal seek, simultaneously, to limit the scope of Wikipedia's ability to inform. They seek to cut short knowledge. It is not for us to deem what is or is not "good" or "relevant" or "trivial" information. All information is of worth. And those who seek to remove any information, are guilty of crimes against knowledge.
  • Comment Uh... what? Knowledge is power? Test your might? What the hell was that?
    Danny Lilithborne 16:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reply I think someone's practicing their abilities at emotional rhetoric. Maybe they plan a future career in politics? --
      tjstrf 16:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete - Using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece attacks as a precidence, I declare that this attack list is fancruft and should be deleted. To quote one of the users in that discussion: "Let me see if I can, I was reading this and then had a look at the page. What does the one page attacks page consist of? Well when you break it down, it's a list of the different ways one character can punch another in the face [note: in this case, it would be "blast someone in the face"]. Using this logic, we should create a page for DC universe offensive use of superpowers - Superman has quite a few and using them in combination he can work up more than 5 "attacks". Once we have done this, we can move onto the same for the Marvel Universe etc. When you consider that minor characters should not have their own articles unless there is good reason.... attacks?" This is even worse than the linked page, since several attacks in this show are very similar.

Similarly, having a page for one attack is just plain silly. Thus, the following will be deleted too.

• Kaio Ken
• Kamehameha (Dragon Ball)
• Genki Dama

Hydromasta231 18:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add this, don't just vote, add a full and valid oppinion; remember:

• Keep- The Kamehameha is a very important element in Dragon Ball and has enough information to keep it's own article. The attack list doesn't do any harm, and it helps readers understand more about what they're reading by giving a picture and description of each attack. I'd say these articles are pretty important, and this request is pretty rash. I also think it's interesting how your account is only 2 says old, and you have 7 edits (6 of which are creating this page and nominating said pages for deletion).--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 19:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- It's possible that they are fancruft, but that alone doesn't warrant deletion (please read
  WP:CRUFT). These articles are well written and cited. They should stay. I find Koji's point regarding your account interesting as well. CPitt76 23:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep- Attack lists are perfectly valid to make articles about, and this is a well made one. For the record, I don't agree with the deletion you linked to either. Sigmasonic X 04:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, there's no need to delete this attack list page. Why would you want to do that in the first place? Dragonball1986 09:46, 09 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, you see, it seems Hydromasta doesn't like attack lists and thinks they don't belong on Wikipedia (apparently, so do many other people, as seen in the articles for deletion linked), and is using the deletion of the One Piece attack list to delete the others. Sigmasonic X 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- It IS encyclopedic in nature. My only question about it is whather it's supposed to be ALL of them or just techniques used more than once.--Marhawkman 23:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's supossed to be all of them. But, as you can see, it's unfinished. Aperently nobody has time to list the ones that are missing, or not enough people can find the kanji/kana.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 23:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• To any mods (I believe that's who decides if the topics remain open or not), look at the link supplied in the first post for good arguements against attack lists. Hydromasta231 02:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Specifically, the arguement between Justyn and A Man in Black brings up several good points. Hydromasta231 04:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read it. It's the same boring set of arguments that were posed in the articles for deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of injuries, accidents, and mishaps on MythBusters. The designation of "cruft" hinges on it being UNIMPORTANT to the topic in general. This one doesn't fit that because of the nature of the show. The anime has the various special attacks and such things as the way of determining combat. Thus having a list of them is almost as important as having a list of races or characters.--Marhawkman 03:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly fancruft. Make a Dragon Ball Wiki (if there isn't one already) and post it there. Wikipedia shouldn't be a fan's place for anything related to a certain thing. RobJ1981 04:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article doesn't give an greater understanding of the series to laypeople. "It's useful" is not a argument; game guides, weather reports, and bios for unknown people are useful but not befitting of Wikipedia. It "doesn't do any harm" is an even stupider argument; it's the Internet. Of course it doesnt hurt anybody. No deleted article hurt anybody. Please provide some actual arguments, people. 04:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete, total lack of sources; this is just original research based on the show. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Author's
  Danny Lilithborne 05:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Now hold on. He may be new, and I may not agree with him, but this is no different than what the creator of the linked AfD did, and he seems to be a regular and respected editor. A bit ruder perhaps, but his reasons seem to be intended to improve Wikipedia. Sigmasonic X 05:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Charlesknight's first edit wasn't a congratulatory backpat followed by several AfD noms. My
      Danny Lilithborne 05:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Comment - In general, it seems that most of the ability stuff is better confined to the characters who use it. Centralized information in the character articles is far more useful. Also, over 40 "fair use" images in an article is most certainly pushing it... Wickethewok 05:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why is a user coming onto Wikipedia to nominate articles for deletion and spam talk pages with advertisements about this discussion? An experienced user would have been told previously that spamming of talk pages in the manner that the nominator did, is looked down upon by the community in general. Ansell 05:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• To address your complaint, I have contacted the users for attack lists as well. Hydromasta231 07:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. I agree with the nominator, and in the One Piece Attacks AfD I agreed that these also qualify for deletion. JIP | Talk 05:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment It exists because this sort of thing was an important aspect of the anime. The One Peice anime doesn't have the same emphasis on what attacks you use, thus it should not be considered a valid precedent.--Marhawkman 05:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Welllllll...I'm almost tempted to say keep the Kamehameha article, but no. Merge and redirect Kamehameha to
  MC♠ 07:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • How is this page related to your quoted criteria, considering the criteria is a very limited set, and only refers to its status by saying that "current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply" (emphasis added). If this page is more than simply a list, the criteria does not apply. Ansell 08:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • All right. Let me rephrase that. My vote is delete, because there is NO REASON whatsoever that this article needs to exist on its own. The information (such as it is) in this article could easily be trimmed and merged right back into the individual character articles. (How hard is it to mention something like "Vegeta's 'Big Bang attack' creates a large sphere of ki which is then launched at the opponent, leaving a
      MC♠ 22:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep: I've seen pages like this before, I don't think this is fancruff at all. I think this is a good attempt at handling attacks that most other major manga and anime attack pages fail to do and it DOES contain useful infomation. Now I'm not a fan of the show (in fact I can't stand it!), normally I would oppose everything to do with DB because I'm somewhat baised, however this page is okay in my books. It may not get read very often (but there are other wikipedia pages that don't get very often too that are far less informatitive) because of what its about... But it is useful. I don't see a problem with this article.

  Plus a lot of this page is just common knowledge amongst the DB, DBZ and DBGT media. If you delete this, this might make the DBA wikipedia pages incomplete somewhat. I agree there is still room for improvments, for instance there are far too many pictures for moves as some of them cannot be summed up in one picture. As someone pointed , many of these moves are simulair.

  And... Even Superman has his own attacks page so to speak.Powers and abilities of Superman, although its more abilities then attack (just listing what he is capable of doing). Perhaps if this was more written towards like how this article is, would you allow it? I say, if this page is delete worthy at least let everyone working on it at least give everyone a chance to rethink it. Angel Emfrbl 07:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, the flawed and ill-founded "It's just like Powers and abilities of Superman." argument again! Powers and abilities of Superman is a Wikipedia:Summary style breakout sub-article of Superman#Powers_and_abilities. To justify similar breakout articles for one particular facet of Dragon Ball characters on the same grounds, you would have to show that they, like Superman had individual articles on the individual characters that were so crowded that one had to break out the special abilities section, summary style, from the main article on the character. Looking at Vegeta#Techniques_and_special_abilities, that's clearly not the case. Indeed, the information on the attacks in the character article is longer than the information on the attacks in List of Dragon Ball special abilities. This is clearly nowhere near being summary style. You're going to have to find another argument. Uncle G 08:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for the love of God, STOP USING THE "IT'S USEFUL" ARGUMENT. Game guides are useful. Weather reports are useful. How-to guides are useful. Phone directories are useful. They still do not belong in Wikipedia. BEING USEFUL IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT AN ARTICLE. Interrobamf 09:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Even the Kamehameha, while perhaps an important concept in the series, does not need this much detail - the entire article could be boiled down into a single paragraph. Quite simply, this is an encyclopedia not a fan-wiki, and as such it is quite adequate to describe a character's most important abilities in that character's article, and only break them out if (like Superman) those characters and abilities are so culturally relevant that it is important to discuss them in more detail than there's room for in a single article.
  Note that this clearly doesn't apply to these abilities, because even references to Dragonball in other series tend to refer only to very general concepts like "powering up", not to specific attacks.
  As for the people above
  assuming bad faith, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Note that it is necessary to create an account before one can nominate an article for deletion these days. It is quite plausible that the nominator is a long-term contributor who has not previously had any reason to create an account. — Haeleth Talk 09:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I would hardly classify the statements as biting any newcomer. Newcomers do not come straight onto Wikipedia to propose deletions, spam user talk pages, and generally try to
  WP:BITE as a reference. The statement I made did not assume any bad faith, it simply pointed out the behaviour, and its less than accepted way of going about it. Being a long-term contributor, they would know these things. Ansell
  09:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• comment To delete or not seems to hinge on one thing: Is it encyclopedic? If you're going to do an encyclopedia article about DragonBall Z, then you're going to need to explain the various techniques and skills performed during the course of the show. Whether or not this takes the form of an itemized list is determined entirely by how detailed you make the article. IMO this article IS detailed enough to warrant a seperate list. As for "justification" I'd like to point out that there's only ONE article for all of the Dragonball characters.--Marhawkman 09:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. You don't have to explain the mass amount of "attacks" "He blasts him away with ki energy." "He blinds him with a ki skill." It's rather easy to explain without resorting to pointless names that only confuse the lay reader. Interrobamf 10:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I find it to be the opposite. That sort of explanation is suited to a plot summary. However it's not well suited to an encyclopedic article. Besides, the names aren't pointless. Most of them are mentioned in the anime/manga as the name of the technique when it is shown being used.--Marhawkman 10:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hilarious how you refer to an "encyclopedic article", as a list of fictional attacks in a cartoon that's treated as if they were real isn't anywhere close to encyclopedic. I still fail to see how "Goku uses an Kalakamakma on Biggu Heado" is more encyclopedic than "Goku fires a blast of ki energy at Biggu Heado". Interrobamf 10:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's an encyclopedic article about Dragonball Z in general. The attacks shown are as much a part of DBZ as the characters are. Leaving them out would result in an incomplete article.--Marhawkman 10:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it as well as the rest: Why the heck is this page being nominated for deletion and on the basis that the One Piece Attacks got deleted? The Dragonball pages are more professional looking than what was deleted plus these moves are more notable than the One Piece ones. Do not delete them because they are integral. They exist because they are part of this types of character. The way a fictional anime and manga character hits someone with a named attack can explain alot of the character. They explain what a character can do and can't do. They explains how far they are willing to go. They explain the character's creativity based on how they deliver the attack. They explain alot of the characters that words alone cannot summarized. You can't explain that in a summary like what the Superman page. The only way to convey that message is to list the attacks in some sort of manner. This is not cruft. In fact as quoted by the admin who deleted the One Piece article "One man's "cruft" is another man's priceless tidbit on information, and regardless of anything else it's incredibly rude to the individuals who have volounteered their time creating the article to use a belitteling and pejorative term." In other words what is useless to one person is useful for another person. This page is worthless to somebody who doesn't like or even knows the show but it is useful to those who do. The One Piece Attacks deletion was a great lost to alot to the people who edited it. It made alot of people sad and angry. Did anyone think about those people who gave alot of sweat and blood for that page. Did anyone think of the long hours and research they tireless did. If you delete this page and others like them based on what really should be in a proper looking and real encyclopedia rather than a free source of information then you are alienating an entire community from wikipedia. You are alienating them all. You are alienting both editors and clients. I am saying all these because I was spammed by one for my opinion who's first post in Wikipedia was in the One Piece attack AFD discussion namely the guy who brought up these entire discussion. I am going a bit uncivil here and risking being blocked if not banned from Wikipedia but it is well worth it. I rather be blocked than edit in a place that alienates anime fans.CalicoD.Sparrow 10:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the Internet. Get a grip. You might want to also refer to the notice below the editing box: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Again, BEING USEFUL IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT AN ARTICLE. Interrobamf 10:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not use capitals, it is thought of as shouting, which can be seen as a personal attack. You can calmly discuss your point in a civil manner, or you can choose not to continue the discussion.
      • Then perhaps people should stop make the same useless argument. Which I don't see happening anytime soon with simple text. Interrobamf 11:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article is
    not survive. Thats about all there is to it. Two guidelines which spell out your entire predicament, if only in a totally ironic way, when you consider the effects of "common practice" and the fact that Wikipedia:Notability got into play purely based on AfD common practice. Ansell
    10:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Do not delete them because they are integral. Yeah, because the universe would explode without a Wikipedia article about the Makankosappo.
    Danny Lilithborne 11:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Merge I've considered this for a while and feel that it'd be best to make a single attack list and use it as a sort of reference for the other pages in the Dragonball article.--Marhawkman 11:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Dragon Ball Character articles are already massive as it is; now you want us to copy all these attacks and ect. into them? The list is a conveinient and informative article. It isn't "fancruft" at all. It's just ifnormation about attacks used in the show. How are we supossed to write the Dragon Ball articles and expect somone who's never seen the show to understand it? I've seen that in every peer review, Rey Brujo mentions that the article needs to be understandable to somone who hasn't seen the show. That's what this article is. I really don't see what part of this article warrants deletion, and every DB article links to it.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 12:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is part of why I'm voting merge. With a list of attacks we can leave all the attack discription on the list and simply add relevent links to the character pages.--Marhawkman 13:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I really don't see how these are all that different from the One Piece Attacks page, they have all the same positive and negative aspects. Reading the closing admin's reasoning on that deletion debate, it seems the main reason the One Piece Attacks were deleted was a complete and total lack of cited sources external to the thing itself. This is a valid concern, and one I brought up in my keep "vote" there. This AFD bundles the attack list with 3 pages on individual attacks. The main attack list is a little better sourced than the One Piece one (but not much), but the other 3 have no sources cited at all. Any keep argument I can come up with would be essentially the same as the ones I made there; however I definately do see the vital importance of sources to Wikipedia's credibility. A lot of people would make an exception for fiction, but I'm not convinced that fiction should be an exception to the reliable sources rule. I do believe, however, that a lack of cited sources is a clean-up concern and not a reason for deletion. However, in instances where sources can never reasonably be expected to be found deletion may be an option. The difference between the main list here and the One Piece attacks list is that this one does cite 2 sources, whatever you may think of the quality of those sources. Therefore, by that reasoning it should be kept. The other three articles however, do not cite any sources (though I imagine they would be the same as the main article), and therefore should be merged into the main list and deleted (or sourced appropriately, including a source for the contention that they are more important then the other special abilities and deserve their own article). Hence, the weak keep. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and close: No one has actauly given any valid reasons for deletion, as such, this is not an issue, if you din't give a reason you don't have grounds, there is no grounds for deletion here. Let's send a message here:

"Fancruft" is not a reason for deletion, don't nominiate things for deletion because they are "fancruft".

(Justyn 14:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a valid article with no good reason to delete. Turnstep 15:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: not just fancruft; nn, unencyclopedic fancruft. Eusebeus 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Dragonball series is known for its special abilities and unique attacks. This is really no different than
  Hadoken. If you really want sources, there are enough guides on Dragonball that you can find them. And while I'm trying to assume good faith, it is hard not to be aware that there are some concerns with the integrity of this nomination. FrozenPurpleCube 15:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete all. The three individual attack articles are not just fancruft, they are also completely unsourced and are
  Original research, there is no reason to see the attacks as anything other than non-notable cruft.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What do you mean they are unverifiable? If you look in various media about Dragonball (magazines, comics, video games), they describe many of the attacks outright. See for example the various books by Pojo. FrozenPurpleCube 17:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the well-written comment below by A Man In Black. Anything from "direct observation" counts as original research and isn't usable. Also

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which the list is a prime example of IMO.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

So, if I watch a movie or a television show, and I note that a given star was in it, playing a given character, that is original research? Sorry, but no, that is not OR. Now concluding that a given star is making a comeback, or has hit rock-bottom, that would be. However, you don't seem to realize that I am talking about books and other media that are the ones who have done the observation of the Dragonball series, and as such, this content is clealry derived from that, so your first objection does not apply. To your second, well, I don't think it is a prime example of that, as this is all relevant information to the Dragonball series, which is itself a notable anime. If you think it's indiscriminate, please try to convince me without referring blindly to policies. FrozenPurpleCube 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are clearly verifiable facts in these articles. However, without a single source in any of the articles and just 2 external links to sites which may not be

reliable, nothing is actually verified. I'd strongly suspect that a fair chunk of this is indeed OR and so unverifiable, if there are verifiable facts here - give a source so they can be verified. I feel it is indiscriminate in that it lists every attack, no matter how minor, the Kamehameha is important to Dragonball but can you really say that of the Gekiretsu Kōdan? My view is the stuff which should be said on these attacks would be best served in the other DB articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The Gekiretsu Kodan doesn't have its own article. If you want to remove it from the collated one, I suggest you take it to that article's talk page. But since it is apparently used in some video games, presumably by name, perhaps someone with access to them, and their manuals can provide useful sources. I can't do it, as I'm not knowledgeable enough of Dragonball or Japanese to do it, I don't own any of the games, even the card game. Can others? Maybe. But an AfD like this one is unlikely to make it happen. Especially not when you mindlessly focus on one minor entry. FrozenPurpleCube 02:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ccbyi 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. First and foremost, very little of this is
  inappropriate. Even if these lesser issues were resolved, however, the fact remains that there's no verification and no discrimination, and that's just not the sort of thing that can be included in or allowed in this project.
  
  Incidentally, if anyone is questioning the nom's intent or credentials, then please consider mine instead, as I would have nominated these highly problematic articles had I been aware of them. I am neither a brand new user nor a possible sockpuppet or troll, as has been implied about the nom. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep only Kamehameha if
  sources can be found (which shouldnt be that dificult). I do not see how sources can be provided for other article here nominated. Shinhan 19:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all The Kanehameha is really the only notable attack enough. This is a little too crufty for me, and I accept a lot more cruft than I ought to sometimes. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The verifiability of the article is problematic because of the nature of the subject. Independant agencies aren't gonna write about this. It's going to be either fans or the people who made it. In this case that leaves us with two primary sources. The Anime and the Manga.(the primary sources for ALL of the Dragonball Z pages) But while this, arguably, may not fullfill the letter of the verifiability policy, it IS verifiable by anyone who watches the source material. We do have the various videogames made from the series though. But those are mainly useful for confirming what the anmes of the various things are called.--Marhawkman 21:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we can't verify it, we shouldn't be covering it. There's no need to cover every single story ever told in any anime, manga, or other fictional work; if someone wants to know what happens, whoever-has-licensed-DB-this-week is more than willing to sell them tapes, DVDs, manga volumes, books, or other works. Our goal is to provide plot summary only insofar as it's needed to provide an encyclopedic description of the work or works as artefacts in the real world. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that in this situation it's absurb to consider the subject material of the article to be an unreliable source.--Marhawkman 22:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is that it's absurd to be covering Dragon Ball in greater detail than any reliable sources have done. We should be following the lead of other publications, not forging new
          original research based on direct observation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Comment Okay, guys, stop saying it's not notable. Dragon Ball is widley known, and is very popular. If you delete this stuff for not being verifiable you might as well delete every anime related article.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 21:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, so the Gekiretsu Kōdan is notable? Can you provide non-trivial coverage in third-party reliable sources to describe it? Do not mistake "Dragon Ball (and its followup series) are notable" for "Every single trivial factoid related to Dragon Ball is notable." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what's MFG and Daizenshuu EX? First Person views? Oh yeah, that makes allllllllot of sense.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there isn't an article on Gekiretsu Kōdan, it is merely a component of a larger article. Since the move is used for an episode title, and is found in several of the video games (where it is presumably named in the manual), I can't see a reason not to have it as part of a larger article. FrozenPurpleCube 21:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I use Gekiretsu Kodan as an example; nothing in that article is sourced to anything but first-person observation of the works themselves (or fansites of questionable reliability which aren't cited anyway). How are any of these attacks noteworthy except as minor parts of an extremely long-running fictional series? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "How are any of these attacks noteworthy except as minor parts of an extremely long-running fictional series?" I just laughed when you wrote that. We've already explained in detail that these are major parts of the show. You've basically just listed the reason it shouldn't be deleted.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 21:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I understand how they're important to the show. I've also explained how "The attacks are important to the show" means we should describe the attacks as a whole with summary prose, instead of making an indiscriminate list of every single attack that appears in the show. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • They're not all alike. How do we describe a hundred different attacks in one? You're making an assumption, and you know what happens when you do that.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 21:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Depends on the context. For DB as a whole, we could easily say, "Attacks in Dragon Ball are flashy, fantastic, and often pyrotechnic. Characters throw punches in flurries too fast for the eye to see, hurl massive balls of shining ki energy, and often shake the landscape or even split planets in the course of a battle." If we wanted to describe one character's style, we'd do that. They're not all alike, but they're all examples of a single, largely unified art style, and the vast, vast majority are different forms of ki or energy blasts, and the ones that aren't aren't attacks at all and would probably be described individually (flight, fusion, transformation) or are different ways of hitting people (which can easily be summarized). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're still not getting it. They're not all the same. Alot of them are completley different from others. There's more or less no way to summarize all of them into one section. And for your poitn about original research; that's exactly the same as deleting an article because it says grass is green with the edit summary "
                WP:OR".--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
                ]
              • =O OMG!! Look:
                WP:OR!!--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
                ]
                • There's a difference between a common-knowledge claim, trivially simple to source but unsourced as it isn't in dispute and excessive citation would clutter the article, and a claim made only on Wikipedia, attested to nobody. "Grass is green" is so widely verified that it isn't necessary to specifically attest it but attesting it would be trivially easy; these lists are of such narrow appeal that attesting their claims is nearly impossible. There is a difference, and if you can't see it I don't know if I can offer you any satisfaction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • There's a picture of the attack right next to it. There's also DVDs showing the attack. That makes it just as much common knowledge as grass is green. Go ahead, remove the green thing from
                    WP:OR". I bet somone will put it back and say, "OR? There's a picture right there" which is the exact thing that would happen if you removed an attack from the proposed article.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
                    ]
  • Any textbook will tell you healthy grass is green. No book will tell you that such-and-such attack is used by such-and-such DB character, save for the exception of the fictional work in which that act happens. You've described, in extreme detail, the story of a fictional work in less-compelling style, without any reference to reliable sources. That fails
    WP:NOT. If you want to know the attacks that such-and-such character uses, watch the anime or read the manga. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • If you want to know grass is green, go outside and look. Does that statement warrant deletion of
      Grass
      ? Oh, and by the way, according to what you just said, no Anime articles shoudl exsist, because the jist of what you said is that if somone wants to know info about an anime they should just buy it. Well, why not slap an AfD tag on Wikipedia and say if somone wants to know about encyclopedic things, to buy one. =) I'm sure that AfD would close instantly due to your trumendus logic.
    • The whole point of Wikipedia is to aquire the sum of all human knowledge. What you just said goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, and I'm sure if Jimbo were here he'd say the same thing.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're persisting in comparing a dissimilar object. Grass is widely covered in reliable sources independent of...um...the grass itself, whereas the individual DB attacks are not. Most anime cruft is inappropriate to Wikipedia, and I daresay Jimbo hasn't issued any edicts protecting anime cruft lately. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • These attacks are widley covered in reliable sources like...um...the Anime itself. You said that yourself about 3 times, saying that it was part of why this article should be deleted. =D Contradicting yourself isn't a very good way to get an article deleted.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a primary source, and subject to interpretation by the viewer. This is going in circles, and is not productive. If you cannot understand that an article sourced only to direct observation of the subject is not acceptable, then nothing I can tell you will satisfy you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • "an article sourced only to direct observation of the subject is not acceptable" Yet another good reason to delete
              Grass! Boy, you're just full of ideas aren't you? First you wanna remove sourced and obviousley correct ifnromation from Wikipedia, then you wanna delete an article for "not being obvious" when you yourself stated earlier that it's all in the anime. If either of us can't understand the point here, it's you.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • I see five sources independent of grass itself in
                grass. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
                ]
                • I see about 249 sources for this article. The episodes of the anime. I also see millions of fan sites and official TOEI/FUNimation sites. I also see the pictures. Now, if you still think it's OR, thank you for proving my point that too many people on Wikipedia drag arguments on because they hate to be wrong, and whoever has the most edits wins because administrators' dictionaries don't include "fair".--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 23:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Those are not independent of the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well then, because all the information on the Dragon Ball pages is taken from official sources, the anime and manga, and things like Pogo, under your logic we should just delete every Dragon Ball page. And hell, under your logic, just about every page on fiction should be deleted as well. (Justyn 23:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
                    • Doesn't matter. They're still sources. And a hell of alot more than enough to rule out OR. Thanks again for proving my point about people hating to be wrong.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 23:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Santa Claus' last line at the end of the Robot Chicken parody. SchmuckyTheCat 22:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question ......Uh....Scince when is a joke on Robot Chicken a reason to delete an article? 0_o Is there some new policy I don't know of?--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I recall, it was "DBZ (bleep)ing sucks or something like that. I'm fairly sure this isn't a serious comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question then would be why are people making non-serious contributions to this discussion. This is afterall
      not a vote, and the input is not helping. Ansell
      00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It is a serious comment. Maybe it's not the last line, but one of the dragonball characters says a whole bunch of half-japanese/half-english junk and santa says "what the fuck did you just say, was that even english?" And that's about my feelings about everything in the article. This much information about a cartoon is ridiculous and only makes sense to people who already know what it is. SchmuckyTheCat 06:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, it seems that the One Piece attack list has been moved to a wikia, and a link to it has been provided on the One Piece template. Would it please both parties if the DBZ attacks were moved to a similar place, with links to that page replacing the ones currently linking to the pages up for deletion? For example, if Goku's article said "His main attack is the
  Kamehameha", it would instead say "His main attack is the [(insert link) Kamehameha]." Pretty much the only real changes would be that the attacks can't be found using the Wikipedia search engine, and that the links would have those squares next to them, but it technically wouldn't be on Wikipedia.Sigmasonic X 23:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm fine with this, but under MIB's logic, we would have to move almost every article relating to fiction to a Wikia as well. And thank you for telling of my acomplishments. (Justyn 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • As you say, it is going overboard to insist on "independent" sources, whatever the real definition of that is. Reliable sources in the context of this article are going to be on the fan sites, where if something is said that is wrong, someone will pick up on it in a Peer Review fashion, which gives legitimacy to the site overall. Kind of like the peer review system here, except they are much more devoted to single topics on those sites (hence improving in accuracy value). Ansell 00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Independent sources are sources which aren't the subject itself. It's not an unreasonable standard to ask for some sort of commentary in third-party sources so that we aren't publishing someone's
        personal interpretation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Dude, scince when is a fucking Anime personal interpretation? Do you even have any legitamite argument anymore or are you making this shit up as you go along?--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any real problems with this solution. Hydromasta231 01:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Big problem here. If this article and the Kamehameha pages get deleted, where do the interwiki links go? Back to
  bias.) The attacks page only has two (French and Japanese), but we still need a place to put them. Don't ignore these! ColourBurst 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  They go nowhere. The fact that other Wikipedias have not yet cleaned up unencyclopedic articles doesn't mean we have to repeat their mistakes. (Now, before you argue that they're unencyclopedic, if they don't have any sources, they're unencyclopedic. If they DO have sources that aren't the subject itself, then we should take those sources and use them in these articles and negate my argument above.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Dude, will you stop saying they don't have sources? They DO. They have about 3 million. What the fuck is your problem man? Sources which aren't the subject themselves aren't needed. How is an Anime not notable? Are you fukcing high or something? Saying there aren't sources is just plain biased. You want an independent source, fine, look at the millions of fan sites and merchandise. There's no way in hell for you to back up your argument of it being un-sourced, unless, of course, you expect everyone to just assume you're right scicne your an administrator. Two things I've noticed about this AfD is that it was made in Bad Faith by a possible sock puppet, and nobody really has any solid arguments against the articles. I'm pretty sure that warrants closing, unless you wanna use your godly administrator powers to change the policy on closing an AfD so you won't lose the argument.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 01:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Repeating the word "fuck" or any misspelled variation is no substitute for commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject. If you want the article kept, the burden is upon you to produce such commentary so that the article can be written based on something other than personal observation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, okay, I get it, the 279 episode Anime is just my personal opinion. These articles should definitly be deleted, seeing as how having about 3 million sources isn't enough for any article. Let's see, how many artciles on Wikipedia have less than that? You better get started. Oh, by the way, this is directly from the admin guide for deletion: "Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." Seing as how this whole thing was started in bad faith, your job as an administrator would be to close it, not to repeatedly say that it isn't notable, when it obviousley is. Also: pay attention to what I write. Just because I'm used to using vulgar languege doesn't mean my opinion doesn't matter.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 01:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  You've mistaken "people interested in the subject" and "structural divisions of the subject" for "reliable sources independent of the subject". You've argued that there are a lot of DB fans and that there are a lot of DB episodes. That's nice, but the fact that DB is important does not necessarily mean that every single detail of DB is sufficient material for its own Wikipedia article. Given the lack of sources other than direct observation, the indiscriminate nature of these articles, the fact that these attacks can reasonablybe summarized in broader articles, and the legion of style problems with these articles, I think there's ample evidence that we don't need such overspecific articles.

  Now, as for being an admin, I'm here expressing my opinion as an editor, rather than closing the AFD debate (which I wouldn't do, as I've participated in the debate and additionally have a strong personal opinion). The fact that I am an administrator is only relevant insofar as it's good evidence that I'm a user in good standing, as opposed to the nominator, who is apparently a brand-new user. I never meant to imply that my arguments carried any extra weight because I'm an administrator, merely that even if this was a bad faith nom made by a new user with a grudge (the worst possible situation) that the nom had a point and such-and-such reasons were why. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The attacks are probobly the second most important part of the show. The entire series focuses around them, so having articles describing them in detail and they're origin/history is notable, encyclopedic, helpful to the readers, and interesting.

  About the admin thing; I apologize for that. Latly I've somehow developed a sort of prejuduce against administrators, and when I see one making the same point that has already been proven wrong millions of times over and over, or seems to be violating admin guidlines/WP:AGF, or just acting in a questionable matter, I get a little snippy (see, I have self control. I could've said pissed, but I decided to use preppy talk so my opinion would matter =D ).--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 02:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I could assert that the color orange is the most important part of the show, and then write Orange (Dragon Ball) about every appearance of the color orange. No interpretation, of course, just a list of every single orange thing in Dragon Ball. (It'd be a lot; orange is one of Toriyama's favored contrast colors.) The hedge against me doing so is the fact that we rely on (sounding like a broken record here) coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. These lists have the same problem that Orange (Dragon Ball) would, and the argument that the attacks are important would apply, just as reasonably, to the color orange, because it's a claim made by a Wikipedia user with nothing whatsoever other than that Wikipedia user's say-so to support it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  .....Okay, for the last time, this isn't someone's "say-so". This is a widley known fact about a widley known Anime show. This list is important to describe the attacks to help a reader invision and learn about the attack. Nobody has to invision or learn about Orange, because it's just orange. These are complicated, hard to understand, yet very important (and hard to spell =( ) things that the entire show (and not to mention the entire clump of DB Articles here on Wikipedia) revolve around, summed up into easy to understand explainations and histories of useages.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 02:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If the facts in these articles are widely known, then there shouldn't be any difficulty attributing them to reliable sources independent of the subject itself. If there is difficulty, consider the possibility that they're merely the consensus of a limited minority. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  What more do you want, man? There's official websites, merchandise, a long chain of video games, even birthday plates/hats for litle kids. You want me to take a hobo off the street and ask him if he's heard of DB, and what he says decides if it's notable or not?--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 02:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Commentary in

  WP:RS. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  According to what you just cited, a secondary source is an opinion/source from somone unfamiliar with the subject. I know for a fact that more than half of the people who voted keep haven't edited this article once, and that the people making the merchandise don't know shit about the series (though I know for a fact the next reply you write will tell me neither of those matter). I hoenestly don't see what reason there is for deletion, as this is one of the most important articles in the

  Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and Manga because all other DB articles link to/revolve around it. It's notable, hs sources, doesn't violate any policies, and this entire thign was started in bad faith.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 02:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  We need commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject. If you want the article kept, the burden is upon you to produce such commentary so that the article can be written based on something other than personal observation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • you're missing the point. This is an ANIME. ALL third party sources are fan sites and thus inappropriate for use a source. ALL THIRD PARTY SOURCES. The only reliable information comes from the original source.--Marhawkman 14:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Vectro 04:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia is not a place for plot summaries. But if plot summaries are unsuitable, at least they have the inherent virtue of concision. Compare this monstrosity. One sample: It can also be utilized in conjuncture [sic] with attacks; the Shunkan Idō Kamehameha was used by Gokū during his fight with Cell. Gokū charges up for the Kamehameha (up to KA-ME-HA-ME) high up in the air, pretending to be shooting the Kamehameha from there (which would blow the Earth away if he did) and then uses the Shunkan Idō to appear right in front of Cell and blasts him with the final syllable (HA!). It was somewhat tricky and Cell was completely caught off-guard by Goku's attack. This isn't even a plot summary; it's a too-literally blow-by-blow running account. Delete this for its failure even to resemble an encyclopedia article, to the point where of course nothing like it is described in "WP:NOT". Anyway, it's just what Dragon Ball wiki is for; so take it away and plonk it there (if Wikia's "fair use" policies are sufficiently lenient). -- Hoary 09:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • • It's a needlessly elaborate description, but that's a CLEANUP issue, not a reason for deletion. Honestly I think moving it to Wikia would be a good idea myself.--Marhawkman 14:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree entirely with this. The above sample sounds like the kind of detailed screenwriting I had to keep in mind in a battle scene in a movie I'm supposed to act in: the sort of "I hit you on the shield and you hit me on the shield, this goes on three times, then you manage to go around the shield and hit me on the side, at which point I collapse on the ground. I try to lift my shield but you kick it away from me..." Whereas a plot summary would say something like: "A Caledonian warrior and a Viking warrior fought each other. The Viking won, killing the Caledonian. He then proceeded onwards to the Caledonian castle, intent on raiding its treasure..." JIP | Talk 13:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This isn't the sort of area Wikipedia should be getting into. We're targeting a general audience, and whilst it's great to get detail, let's not go too far. Where the information is suitable, merge it. A Man in Black sums up a lot of the issues for me. Maybe an anime targeted wiki should be considered, is there anything on
  wikia we could consider a transwiki to? Hiding Talk 12:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Response: Yes, there's a wiki just for this: Dragon Ball wiki. -- Hoary 02:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Again with the Wikipdia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As it is Gokus signature attack, surely the basics can be fitted into his profile. MultiJoe 13:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "As it is Gokus signature attack, surely the basics can be fitted into his profile." Which we were specifically told to shorten.... Geez, make up your minds already.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 13:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all or move to some niche-interest wiki; this suffers from
  WP:WAF (which is not a reason for deletion, I know). Sandstein 17:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment As explained already about a million times, these do not violate
    WP:OR in any way. It also isn't "fancruft", as explained earlier. Please try to read some of the discussion before voting.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 20:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I have done so, and was not persuaded. Please
      WP:AGF. Sandstein 21:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Comment: The "niche interest wiki" is Dragon Ball wiki. -- Hoary 02:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possibly merge sub-articles into List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Cleanup for excessive plot summary and speculation, but otherwise definite keep. The attacks are distinguishing features of the characters and sometimes reveal relationships between them, they are often puns that are opaque to English readers without explanation. They appear in manga, anime, video and card games, and secondary sources. Developing these techniques is actually the main thrust of DB/Z's plot.