Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 vs 40 (Zipang manga)


 * 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   redirect to Zipang (manga). \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

1 vs 40 (Zipang manga)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article clearly violates Manual of Style (writing about fiction), WP:NOT, and WP:INUNIVERSE. There is not a single word or sentence in the article that claims that this has any relevance at all outside the series. Savidan 18:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * *facepalm* Barely any acknowledgement that it's fictional. So much work ... —Quasirandom (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, after another cuppa joe to recover my equilibrium. Ordinarily, I'd get cranky about using a style guideline as an inclusion guideline, but this article is far, far more deeply problematic than ye usual writing about fictional elements. Still, that's not a relevant criterion, nor is WP:INUNIVERSE (which is not even a guideline but an explanation). WP:NOT is, however, definitely applicable here, and I'm not seeing any potential to make the article avoid that. Ordinarily, I'd say merge to Zipang (manga), but this is simply way unduly detailed information for an article about the (highly notable) work in question. Redirect to Zipang (manga) as a possible (if not necessarily plausible) relevant search term. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No coverage by reliable third-party sources and entirely a violation of WP:NOT with it excruciatingly overly detailed blow-by-blow plot summary. Given the extensive nature of the article, I would not doubt that there is a great deal of original research going on here as well. The article also does not make any distinction between fact and fiction, so if one didn't read the very first sentence, one would think that this was an actual battle. Title is not a likely search term and there doesn't appear anything worthy of merging anywhere else. --Farix (Talk) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete + redirect Plot & in-universe contents treated as real war event. So much that the line between realty & fiction is very blurred. Aside of the notability, excess of plot & original research issues already mentioned, an article trying to put fictional war event at the same level than real ones by even using the same infobox deserve to be deleted. --KrebMarkt 18:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Do not redirect, as there is no evidence that this lengthy string would be a likely search term. It is not an official name for an episode. Currently the article gets about 11 page views a day. Abductive (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect This is an example of excessive detail. DGG (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete — Nothing encyclopædic here, folks. Jack Merridew 08:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.