Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genki Dama


 * 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 merge. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Genki Dama

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A ridiculous level of detail ... an article devoted to a single attack mode in one anime series? No third-party reliable sources at all, either. Kww (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into or redirect to Son Goku. Fails WP:N without "reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Some of the content, however, should be folded into the parent subject. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Roehl Sybing. Be very specific about what gets kept and what gets trashed. JuJube (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge into Son Goku. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have examined the target article Son Goku, and can't see the difference between a redirect and a merge in this case. The target article contains Goku's most powerful attack is the Genki Dama, a sphere created by gathering chi energy, which he also learned from North Kaio. What more information does an encyclopedia need about a special attack?Kww (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect Merge or redirect per above. Earth bending  master  22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability in the article. If any independent, reliable secondary sources do exist I do not think that they will be easily found in a reasonable timescale. Guest9999 (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge what is mergeable. This is the sort of detail that is certainly not worth a separate article. I agree with Kww that this is not encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2008 (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.