Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball canon


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete. The argument that this text is largely original research is unrebutted. I will userfy content for anyone who will work to provide reliable sources for it. Xoloz 17:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dragon Ball canon
This is entirely original research. As the lead of the article states, it is a term used by fans to describe the various levels of "truth". Its essentially unverifiable speculation on which Dragon Ball series are more authoritative to the overall story line. There's no information here thats usable that isn't already in other Dragon Ball articles. Also, there are, of course, no reliable sources. Delete as unverifiable original research. Wickethewok 19:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, although I'll change my view if secondary references that substantiate notability are included. Addhoc 19:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article follows the same conventions as cannon (fiction) and gives valid reasoning for it's levels of cannon (basically, the amount of involvment of the creator of the series). Beowulph 19:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Assuming the creator's involvement as determining an order of "truth" and integrating details which fans seem to think are relevant to how "true" something is sounds like original synthesis to me... Wickethewok 19:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Beowulph the use of canon in this non-religious sense is very widespread, the BBC use it to discuss Dr. Who for example. In this case however, the article doesn't appear to establish notability. Just saying that fans use the term without secondary references isn't really sufficient. Addhoc 19:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How about a wording change to something along the lines of "reflecting the authors original intentions"? Beowulph 20:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a reference that demonstrates the author's intentions? Addhoc 10:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 *  Keep if cleaned-up and made more neutral . The problem is that Toei Animation(the studio that OWNS Dragon Ball) decides what is canon how much canon they are. Articles like Canon (Star Trek) are verifiable because Paramount makes it clear what is canon and what isn't. This article is really just the opinion of certain fans, especially the part about GT being lower than the other shows just because it's not based on a manga by Akira Toriyam. TJ Spyke 21:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Delete unless some official sources(i.e. Akira Toryima or Toei Animation) can be found saying what is and isn't canon, and how much so. TJ Spyke 04:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Better off without it. -- bullet proof  3:16 22:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, in Dragon Ball fandom, canon is very important. This prevents having to summarize canon in many different articles. JRP 01:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 01:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per JRP and Beowulph, pending slight clean-up. Voice of Treason 02:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC).
 * JRP, the problem is that certain fanboys assert their opions into the page(like saying GT is not canon or less canon than anything else) with no evidence to back it up. This wouldn't be a problem if this were like Star Trek or Star Wars, both of which make it very clear what is canon and how canon they are by their studios. TJ Spyke 02:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Huh? I'm not JRP. But, uh, moving beyond that *cough*, anyone who believes "GT is not canon to the TV series!" is going to great lengths to fool themselves in not wanting to dilute their vision of the show with what, in their view, is an inferior product. I'd agree as far as the manga goes, but GT is the same as all other produced anime-only filler done on the original Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z anime series. Doesn't make it any less awful, but also any less so. Voice of Treason 02:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment : TJ, the problem is, you don't know what the canon is, and you are guided mostly by your own tastes than a desire to write encyclopedic contributions.Folken de Fanel 13:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is subject to some abuses, particularly from the GT-bashers. I hope that we can do a better job of policing this and citing sources. I'm going to see what I can to get references there, etc. JRP 02:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom as non-verifiable and OR. The very fact that editors of the article cannot agree on what constitutes canon does not help a bit. Needs some published authority to quote. Encyclopedias rely on secondary sources, not the opinions of respective editors. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep : As said earlier, this article follows the same conventions as canon (fiction). Each section is perfectly documented, with each time valid proofs determining precisely the implication of the original author. The order of canon is thus perfectly documented and verifiable.Folken de Fanel 13:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research and inescapably POV when based on fan interpretations of what is and is not canon. Wikipedia is not the place to assess what is canon for a series or assign levels of canonization. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because it fails WP:OR, and WP:V, and it doesn't follow WP:NPOV. This is original research on the part of all the editors.  They may be justified in their conclusions about the "canonness", but it i still original research.  There is no verifiability as there is not authority determining what is canon, and no sources from which to draw this information.  And there are disputes of the what is and isn't canon because of this. -- Whpq 18:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment : why not rename the article as "Toriyama's implication in each product of the DB world" or something like that ? Since it's the word "canon" that seem to bother everyone.. Folken de Fanel 22:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm putting together a revision of this article using references, but it may take a couple of days due to the fact that all of my books are in boxes because I'm moving. I believe that while the word "canon" is not used, there is a clear separation in some of Toei's literature, specifically their Dragon Ball "daizenshuu" guides, that delineates the levels of manga vs anime vs movie canons. Unfortunately, most of those references are in Japanese so it's slow going. But, I think that I can put together an acceptable and cited version of this article. JRP


 * Strong Delete and give two demerits to any editor who inserts unsourced statements on "canon" into any article on fiction on wikipedia. "Canon" is inherently a violation of NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V.  It should never be used unless extraordinarily well sourced.  In fact, this article admits to being a product of fan-activity in the first 10 words.  It should also not be kept because we have a crappy article on the general usage of canon in works of fiction.  --Kunzite 01:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete not only is it OR, but when it comes to stuff like this you should just state the facts and let the reader come to their own conclusion. -- Ned Scott 10:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into appropriate articles, and add citations as necessary. &mdash;  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  22:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's all original research since neither Toei Animation or Akira Toriyama(the ONLY people who can say what is and isn't canon in Dragon Ball) have said what is canon. Edgecution 03:38, 8 September 2006 (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.