Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akatsuki (Naruto)


 * 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 Snowball keep. Topic obviously asserts notability as explained by many participants here (eg: main antagonists of a notable manga). In-universe style is not a reason to delete, it's just a problem that editors frequently encounter when writing about fiction (noted: nominator even misunderstood that in-universe is encouraged in fiction-related articles, as he/she stated A good article really needs both in-universe and real-life references). However, the lack secondary sources is still a matter of concern that needs to be addressed as soon as possible. A minor rewrite that helps reduce the in-universe perspective is also necessary. @pple complain 08:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Akatsuki (Naruto)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is well-referenced but I don't think it passes WP:FICTION on its own and a lot of it is just WP:PLOT. A good article really needs both in-universe and real-life references, and this one lacks the latter. Merge to List of Naruto villains. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-referenced article and already merged from two separate ones. Merging this with the villains article would be foolish. 16:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someguy0830 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment, not sure what you mean. Why would it be foolish to merge these villains with the villain article? Try googling the subject, nothing really important but fan-related sites and YouTube videos. This was the closest I could come to a real world source but it doesn't say how Akatsuki effects other media. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * :They're the main villains, for starters. Next, you'll only find useful reviews in Japanese sites, since they are not a main villain as far as the English version is concerned. Three, it's a conglomeration of several topics whose self-notability would not warrant an article but together do. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I knew this was going to happen.But Akatsuki is a good article because they are the main villains in the series, and make enough apperences, especially after there most recent appearences in the current manga. -Tobi4242 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep' Should have foreseen this. Anyway, I say keep because it is indeed referenced, and if I am correct the character lists for this page was deleted so it could be moved to where it was supposed to be. Also adding a Comment, if you say the article should be merged, then why tag for deletion?--TheUltimate3 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment because I believe that afds get more community attention, whereas merge tags usually get removed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep hmmm, good case, but not good enough. They're the main villains of the series, they can pass WP:FICT (if not already), and if merged the villains article will be too long for WP:SIZE (it would be at least 60 kilos by my count). And he tagged for deletion because of my Itachi thing and I guess seeing how long it took to do he doesn't want to wait that long. Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 02:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the former Itachi page actually had out-of-universe references. This one, however, does not. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason why this article should be removed. Akatsuki is currently the main protagonist in the series and is significant enough to have its own article. Enoch08 03:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreed with the above. They're the MAIN VILLIANS for Naruto 2 for cripe's sake! XD! Seriously, why wipe them out? Zabuza is the main villian in the real mission, and was killed off and never seen again, so I'll let that pass for the merge, but why stamp Akatsuki on there? I mean, they stole Gaara's beast, killed Asuma, about to kill Jirayia (I think), and all you can think about it wiping them out or merging them. And they have SO MANY REFFERNCES AND ALL THAT, THAT IT'S REAL EASY, IN REAL LIFE OR IN-UNIVERSE. HILARIOUS. ZeroGiga 04:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Everyone above have said what I wanted to say, so I would be just repeating words if I wanted to express my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.56.70 (talk) 08:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * :This anon has done few or no other edits outside of this afd. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The akatsuki are villians therfor there should be a link from the villians page to here. However they are diffenrent from ordinary villians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.46.162 (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This anon has done few or no other edits outside of this afd. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep central antagonist in a very very notable series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The mechanism for a merge proposal is the merge templates, not an AfD. An AfD is the mechanism for deletions -- it even says so in the name. This should not have come here. *thumps cane* — Quasirandom 18:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well I think we've done quite enough deletion of anime-related articles, such as the ones for Bleach. If we keep deleting this articles, it's going to be a pain to recreate them when we realize we screwed up. - Cptmike2 — Preceding comment was added at 19:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Huh, I was wondering why I didnt find this entry on the AfD mainpage... Also, I agree with Quasirandom that this really isn't listed in the right place, if you had wanted to put this forth as a merge, you should have done it through the right channels. Regarding the article, it has quite a lot of sources, and as the primary antagonist group of a notable series, it should be notable enough for its own article. -- Ghost Stalker  (Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 21:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: What Sam ov the Blue Sand said is true. This article follows our accordance with WP:FICT as they are the main antagonists of this series. If we merge like you proposed Sesshomaru, then WP:SIZE would apply and it would not work. Also, it is pretty hard to find reliable third party sources to verify the information.  σмgн gσмg  23:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. — Quasirandom 00:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Oh good grief. --Gwern (contribs) 01:27 6 November 2007 (GMT)
 * Remember, Wikipedia is a consensus so you have to provide a reason why otherwise your opinion qualifies as "I like it".  σмgн gσмg  08:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That applies equally well to the deletion discussion. Remember that it's innocent until proven guilty; vague wishy-washy concerns about not particularly popular guidelines (which probably mask a real reason of IDONTLIKEIT) don't cut the mustard here. The burden of proof is not on me, but the nominator. --Gwern (contribs) 13:16 6 November 2007 (GMT)


 * Keep Well written article about main characters in a popular anime. It deserves its own article as its too long to be incorporated anywhere else. There are lots of primary sources, it does need some secondary ones, but AFD isn't supossed to be used to clean up articles. Just like with WP:SAL if a list gets too long in a parent article, it gets its own page. The same logic applies here. Viperix 04:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this just had something merged to it. They're not individual articles, which mollifies me. I'd like to see it cut down a bit, and some variations in references could be nice.  &mdash; Soleil  (formerly I)  06:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep invoking the snowball clause. This is not the correct venue to initiate a merger discussion. --Farix (Talk) 12:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Itachi had no O.U.R. so don't make stuff up. You still have no answer for WP:SIZE and the fact that indeed it does pass WP:FICT. Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: Not satisfied with any of the reasons. Satisfies WP:FICT enough to give it enough time for the English version to catch up more so Akatsuki gets more involved at the very least. By then we'll begin to see several English reviews. I'm really annoyed by seeing "all-plot" as a way to merge in-universe articles, so I'll just say it: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALL-PLOT AND IN-UNIVERSE!. All plot would be only listing what each member did plotwise, like Zetsu watching Sasuke and Naruto's fight, Tobi annoying Deidara at this one meeting, and Pein sitting on a statue. We list things about the character and shortly describe how they left the organization if they did (Most died, and that's a definite list right there). As for the final one, I believe Wikipedia's far too strict on primary sources. There are books that are without question notable, yet primary sources would be just about all that can be used. You also have little idea just how popular Akatsuki is in Japan, as do most of the others here. They're on the same level of popularity as Tingle or Vaati from The Legend of Zelda, who themselves make tens of millions of dollars for Nintendo. Unfortunately, Google search will send you links from websites speaking your country's primary language(s), so in America, finding anything on Akatsuki is hard, as most is Japanese. Mabye we can find stuff like how much that character has made in figurine sales, which is kinda out-of-universe. All in all, despite how good your case is, your reasons just aren't satisfiable enough. ...Wow, that was long. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 23:42, 6 November 2007 (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.