Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball (anime)


 * 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   no consensus. (Without, of course, any prejudice to a Merge discussion continuing elsewhere). Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Dragon Ball (anime)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an unnecessary WP:CFORK of Dragon Ball, previously merged, and then unilaterally unmerged when Dragon Ball Z was created once again as a proper standalone article. The information contained within this page is already located and better suited at Dragon Ball. There is nothing worth merging, but it still has its utility as a search option, so redirecting would be the best option.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 16:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is an acceptable related article as it deals specifically with the anime adaptation which meets both notability and general notability guidelines. While the article is currently in development, deletion is not clean up and something that made billions and has been shown in over 40 countries and is an integral part of anime history is worthy of its own split to detail production, cast and cultural impact without ruining the flow of the franchise. This show has 153 episodes and even its music would go on to be a major success, the history of the English adaptation alone represents a need for a spinoff. Simply put, this anime is notable and needs its own page to address its own details as stated in WP:DETAIL without negatively impacting the broad coverage of the Dragon Ball franchise page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing that this article does not meet WP:N or WP:GNG so stop bringing that up whenever someone sends one of these pages to deletion or argues that the page should be merged. This is already discussed at WP:PAGEDECIDE, and Dragon Ball (anime) (which has "been under development" for 3 months now) does not meet the requirements there. Therefore, it is best to have a single article discussing Dragon Ball the manga and Dragon Ball the anime that came before Dragon Ball Z rather than having this tiny article that's a puffed up cast list and a section chock full of citation needed posted in 2008.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 17:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That has been rectified; I can grab some primary sources and some example images for the rest, but I included the Oolong citations and the nudity censoring and the changes to the bath scene and a discussion on the contextual changes made by the censorship and alterations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * *Delete per WP:CFORK, looking at the two articles, the only diffrences I see, are the unreferenced censorship section and a trivial cast section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be because Ryulong copied and pasted it in before reverting it out. Which you then re-added. You than deleted the unsourced section. Now... you say "CFORK", but having a specific topic is an acceptable "CFORK" perhaps you could explain your reasoning better? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long post, but let's analyze the arguments. Now, if I asked you to clarify these "other editors" as done before, you count only the "present" parties and omit those like Only in Death and the actual people who created, maintained and in this case restored the page - by all accounts, I am not alone, but I am the most vocal opposition you've ever encounter. Though that does not mean that I forced you to take it to AFD; it was wider Wikipedia policy that suggested such an action in this very situation. WP:BLAR is not my creation, but you are right to assume that I would challenge the local consensus of the Wikiproject. However, your argument is baseless from this point on. First, I do not subscribe or ever put forth any such notions that "every single" work needs its own page - and you've repeatedly stated that I also want to include all the lists as well. Please, I am tired of restating that this is not true and your say-so does not make it so. Your issue of PAGEDECIDE is a reversal of the actual usage and intentions; this is on the editorial, as in the individual editor's, decision to create a page and upon which such points are to be considered. PAGEDECIDE does not run in reverse so that editors can removal pages without formal processes to circumvent normal community process. The actions and arguments you put forth are "I don't like it" and this matter has been a terrible detour from our mediation, but let's evaluate our positions. Now, unless I am mistaken:
 * Merge to List of Dragon Ball episodes Changing my opinion to Merge per below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That article currently has information which should be in this article, not in an article only suppose to be listing the episodes.  D r e a m Focus  08:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears sufficiently long to merit its own standalone article, even if it is part of a larger franchise. Since N and GNG appear to be uncontested, the real question is whether the non-Z Dragonball anime needs its own article.  Given that it can be a summary style child of the major Dragonball article and the Z article, I see no reason why info unique to the pre-Z anime wouldn't be collected in a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It just seems that the Dragon Ball article could definitely do double duty on this matter, considering how short Dragon Ball (anime) is at the current time. I wouldn't say that we can never have an article on the subject but there's simply not enough to split off, considering that most of the article prior to my attempt to merge was already located at Dragon Ball and everything else on Dragon Ball (anime) is unsourced commentary.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 04:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close. This is an editorial decision and absolutely not grounds for an AfD discussion. I would do it myself but I'm likely too involved in the surrounding bickering to count as uninvolved. --erachima talk 06:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an editorial decision, but ChrisGualtieri demanded that I take it to AFD to get it settled so here we are.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 07:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Chris has a history of Forum Shopping and an incompetent grasp of Consensus policies. His perspective on the matter is weightless and he's just fishing for a more favorable outcome. --erachima talk 08:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Dragon Ball episodes Because the plot and characters are purely the same as the main Dragon Ball article, unlike GiTS, I have to agree. A separate anime article just wouldn't work out well. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 07:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There is enough valid information to have its own article just as Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT do. Very notable anime.   D r e a m Focus  23:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, we are not arguing notability. We know that Dragon Ball is notable. That's why Dragon Ball exists and it should not be just about the manga, particularly if this short split off article is all Wikipedia can bother to write about the anime adaptation. I do not see enough valid information on the page to satisfy having a separate article. All it is is a plot summary (covering the same plot as Dragon Ball) and a massive table that covers the cast list, most of which is bloated by the fact that there have been too many English language dubs of the show. This article is tiny and not worthy of having been split off, again, from Dragon Ball. Dragon Ball Z is large enough. Dragon Ball GT is another article of questionable quality. Again, no one is arguing notability. Erachima is right that this should not have been brought to AFD but ChrisGualtieri demanded that I do it.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 04:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Short? Its over 20k in size.  No reason to have that all in the main article.  Even without the plot and cast list, it still has enough valid unique content to justify its own article.    D r e a m Focus  08:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of that 20k is already in the main article. In August someone just reverted the change into a redirect and no one's touched it outside of the dispute caused by its returned existence. It's a content fork that was never fixed. For such an insignificant page it is just better to have Dragon Ball cover manga and anime instead of turning it into this god awful franchise page concept that ChrisGualtieri is forcing on the project.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 08:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is information at the top of List of Dragon Ball episodes which should be in this article, not an article dedicated to listing the episodes. That'll add some content to it.  The Dragon Ball article is already over 80k in size.   D r e a m Focus  08:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the format suggested by WP:MOSAM. Manga and anime generally share a single article with other information relegated to list pages so whatever content is on List of Dragon Ball episodes should remain there.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 09:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not in MOSAM; it is just your personal preference that you enforce. Also, MOSAM is not valid or a way to rule by fiat. It is sad that the Wikiproject's editors continue to express such opinions; opting for deletion of content they agree is notable. Merging this page to the "list of episodes" would not make it a list of episodes anymore and the "list of episodes" is already outside its scope. Given the specific anime focus and its size, it would be bad to merge this page into the larger franchise page. Those opting for deletion or merging seem to be twisting WP:PAGEDECIDE pretty far into a blank and redirect or deletion rationale. Clearly, editors of the Anime and Manga wikiproject are more concerned about having separate articles for notable adaptations than they are about the growth and depth of coverage itself. I do not think many admin closers will be swayed by the merge rationale that results in the List of Episodes effectively becoming "Dragon Ball (anime)" because it most certainly be an accurate title when you re-add dub production and releases back into it. The fact it was even called a "list of episodes" with such content was problematic. Sorry, but I see absolutely no reason to merge and if its notable than it should be kept. Anyone want to argue that the anime is not notable? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's also the preference of every other single editor who works in WP:ANIME. And the only reason that I'm opting for deletion is because you demanded that I do it and not go through a normal discussion to determine whether or not the content should be merged into one of the other existant articles. You are the only one who holds the opinion that every single manga and anime should get articles separate from each other if you keep pushing that opinion on everyone on Wikipedia. The content covered by this page is best covered by Dragon Ball, List of Dragon Ball characters, and List of Dragon Ball episodes because that's where it has been for the past 5 years and it was only in August that someone reverted the merge on the basis that you finally got Dragon Ball Z to be an article again. There is nothing on this page that is not already incorporated into other pages. Dragon Ball as a work of fiction is notable but the manga and anime are not independently notable of each other and per WP:PAGEDECIDE we should not have two pages on such interrelated topics when one suffices and has sufficed for so long. Erachima's right about you. You force people to go through unnecessary bureaucratic steps in a public forum such that you get your way and you forum shop whenever things don't go your way.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 03:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Everyone agrees the topic is notable
 * Everyone acknowledges the content has to be kept in some form - but the result or target differs

Evaluating the first line suggests that the page qualifies for stand alone status. Your "PAGEDECIDE" counterargument has a severe flaw besides its intention and usage. The first point, "Does other information provide needed context?" It seems that this applies to Dragon Ball, and in short, no it does not hold necessary context for in-depth discussion of the anime. Secondly, it would not make sense to place the cast, release or censorship information into the page and ruin the article's flow. This is a major point for the continued stand alone article. The merging to the list falls on the principals of mere titling; merging this content no longer makes it just a list and a renaming to Dragon Ball (anime) would be necessary - a useless endeavor when the non-episodic information now resides on this page. The second point "Do related topics provide needed context?" is a resounding no because of the impracticality and the unwieldy result - a separate page is necessary. The "What sourcing is available now?" presents the argument against the creation of permanent stubs, but the page has no expectation or is a permanent stub. Simply put, sourcing exists and the content needs to be added and this expansion for the coverage is best done here and not on the franchises page - the merger would bring up the previous two points. With all this said, the argument is really "because we say so" and lacks any evidence or clear reason to merge. The admin who will serve as the arbiter of this AFD needs only realize that the communities policies governing stand alone pages rests on N and GNG; some disputed and community rejected practice of notability practices pushed by Manual of Style will simply not hold up. The Dragon Ball anime has had over a dozen dubbings and the content potential is simply enormous. When cutting through all the policies and you go to the core of the matter; its deletion would remove sourced content on a notable topic and its merging would disrupt any target page and the likely removal of sourced content which is best kept unified. None of the "this is how we do it" arguments are simply relevant or valid arguments for deletion; the Wikiproject does not get to rule by fiat. Lastly, arguments for deletion or merging should not contain demeaning comments about editors. I do not like being called a "forum shopper" simply because I contest the repeated blank and redirect of a notable topic - on the grounds of an individual's editorial viewpoint. You may disagree with me, but I ask you respect me and respond to my arguments to better foster a more congenial atmosphere. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability does not guarantee having a separate article. It only means that it can be covered on the English Wikipedia. And in 99% of the cases in anime and manga pages, it means that only one article covering both pieces of media is necessary because they are so intrinsically the same that it does not make any sense to cover them separately simply because they are two different kinds of media. "Dragon Ball" as a work of fiction created by Akira Toriyama is notable. That does not mean the manga and its anime adaptation require two separate pages for coverage, particularly when most of the coverage is undue weight towards the American dubs and popularity in the west. That is why WP:ANIME decided as a group that it was improper to produce so many individual articles on each different form of the media and instead have one article that discusses the anime and manga together.. Just because you had a public RFC (forum shopping) to raise the issue that the wording of the page was somewhat unacceptable does not automatically open the door for you to radically change how every single anime and manga page is treated on this project. In some cases your format works (Neon Genesis Evangelion, Dragon Ball Z). In most they do not. Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball (anime) fall into the second group.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 05:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So... rather than make an argument for deletion and merging as it applies to this page you just rehashed your original argument? You are still pushing a local consensus and ownership by suggesting that it was wrong to have a public RFC on this novel interpretation of notability; and that the public's decision was wrong. Now, stop painting me as some extremist out to "radically change how every single anime and manga page is treated on this project" because that is false. Continuing to make such claims is a gross misinterpretation of my stated position and irrelevant to the actual discussion. Now, please stop attacking me as an editor and make your defense for the deletion of this page. If you cannot or will not, please withdraw this so the mediation can continue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The only reason we are even here is because you demanded it. You will not allow merge discussions to take place because you believe it is deletion when you constantly cite WP:BLAR but then at AFD you pull the same shit. I am tired of it. Your positions on these topics are clear. The anime and manga are not independently notable of each other. That is my argument. That is why merge should take place. And that is the last thing I am saying about this.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 12:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  13:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought fucking WP:ARS was eliminated for being a violation of WP:CANVAS. And this is a call to merge with AFD as the venue so there's no need for ARS.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 14:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It was never eliminated. There has never been any proof of canvasing.  I have been trying to find reliable sources for the removed examples of censoring, to put that back in the article.  That and other things can be added to help it grow.  This wikiproject is good at finding sources for things and helping improve articles.   D r e a m Focus  15:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then explain why Template:Rescue got deleted.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 18:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looking at these articles and their respective lengths, I have some difficulty understanding why we wouldn't have a separate article focused on this particular, notable series. In my view, forcing this content into a main article while having separate articles for some of the other derivative works is structurally confusing, could force the elimination of detail, and has some potential for non-neutral POV, at least by implication. In this regard I agree with the comments of Jclemens and Dream Focus. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Dragon Ball episodes. Jun Kayama 07:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've dissected that argument previously - could you please explain why this page should be merged to a list of episodes when the content is not even about the "list of episodes"? The Anime and Manga Wikiproject says "we do this", but provides no valid reason for doing so. You are the third editor to say this without providing a reason. Also, welcome back from your long break. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. To the closing admin: it has been mentioned in passing above, but there is currently a mediation which Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri are participating in, of which I am the mediator. Because this AfD discussion is directly related to the dispute, I have put the mediation on hold until this discussion has been closed. This is just a note to say that I would appreciate it if this discussion could be closed this time around, rather than being relisted, as that would enable us to proceed with mediation. (Although please note that this is just a suggestion, and isn't binding in any way.) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The result of this AFD won't make any difference at all in that. So far its evenly split between those who wish to keep it and those that wish to merge it.  Hopefully we won't have to repeat the same arguments again in a separate merge discussion after this closes here.    D r e a m Focus  07:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, but it will - for a mediation to be successful, the parties need to be able to discuss the issues in an atmosphere of openness and respect, and it is much harder to do this if they are simultaneously discussing the same issues at AfD. While AfD is a discussion and not a vote, it can be easy to slip into a frame of mind of "winning" or "losing". The idea is that if the admin closes the discussion the way that you "voted", then you "win". However, there is no winning or losing on Wikipedia - the important thing is doing what is best to improve our content. It will be much easier to get past the idea of "winning" and "losing" once the AfD is closed and the mediation parties no longer have to worry about what the result might be. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If anyone has an ego problem that big, then there isn't likely to be any way to get through to them anyway, and they are bound to cause problems constantly later on. People disagree on how things should be done all the time, there is no way to convince them.  Some people like needlessly long articles instead of having relevant information on its own side article like this one, and there isn't really much chance of convincing them no matter how many people disagree with them and how the AFD closes.   D r e a m Focus  13:59, 28 October 2013 (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.