Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katanas in fiction


 * 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Katanas in fiction
Delete - indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every appearance in every medium of not only a katana, but of any sword or sword-like weapon that in the opinion of an editor resembles a katana or may have been inspired by a katana. No sources to back up the inclusion of any of the items. Note that the content was split from Katana initially and so should not be merged back to that article per the desires of the editors who maintain that page. See for precedent Articles for deletion/Semtex in popular culture, Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture. Otto4711 19:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research, unsourced, indiscriminate. In my experience, any article entitled "X in popular culture" or "Y in fiction" tends to be a recipe for disaster. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  20:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but annihilate the second part, which is the indiscriminate list, and source the first part, which is a real article. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 20:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but delete the list as per above. Please keep in mind the difference between OR and unsourced material: "Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source.  Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source." (taken form WP:A).  The first part is valuable analysis, many parts of which can be sourced.  The portrayal of the article by the nom as "seeking to capture every appearance in every medium of not only a katana, but of any sword or sword-like weapon" is highly misleading as it describes only one part of the article.  -- Black Falcon 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also please note that there are additional "precedents" that did not end in deletion, such as: Articles for deletion/Stephen Hawking in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr., Articles for deletion/Piano in popular culture, and Articles for deletion/Wheel of Fortune in popular culture. Each article should be judged on its own merits and having moreover participated in teh discussions the author notes (and voted to delete), let me say that those articles and this one are nothing like each other.  The "precedent", quite simply, does not apply because of the huge differences between the articles.  -- Black Falcon 20:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The precedents I listed were for lists of sightings of weapons, just as this is a list of sightings of weapons. That is why they were listed, because they are on point in a way that the ones you listed aren't. Otto4711 22:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And as long as we're counting precedents, which is foolish but what the hell, Articles for deletion/Piano wire in popular culture, Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon references or spoofs (2nd AfD Nomination), Articles for deletion/The Who in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Aerosmith in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2, Articles for deletion/Semtex in popular culture, Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Aleister Crowley in popular culture, Articles for deletion/IKEA in popular culture, Articles for deletion/References to Calvin and Hobbes. Otto4711 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The "precedents" you listed were, as you have noted, about sightings of weapons. However, that's not all that this article comprises.  I agree that the third section (the list) should be deleted from the article.  However, this article includes two sections of analysis.  Why delete the whole thing?  -- Black Falcon 22:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be what we're here to hash out, now isn't it? And it's more like two sections of unsourced possibly original research. Otto4711 22:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on the other articles wiki-linked here, this obviously can't all be "original research." If you think it needs references, shouldn't you just tag it  rather than nominating it for deletion? My understanding is that AfD is intended for articles that you think should be entirely deleted, not for trying to draw attention to articles that you think should be improved. Crypticfirefly 04:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment a lot of the AfDs started recently by Otto4711 (I'd say half or more) seem to show a poor understanding of deletion policy, especially see about how you should fix fixable articles instead of deleting them. I feel that Otto4711 often argues that cleanup issues should result in deletion. I'd much prefer it if Otto4711 used reasons actually from deletion policy instead. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In reviewing your problem articles link, I find the very first item in the chart talks about how AFD should be used for articles which are not suitable for WIkipedia because they violate WP:NOT. Since I believe this article violates WP:NOT and stated so in the nomination, I am puzzled at your suggestion that I have acted inappropriately by nominating it. I wonder, based on this comment, other comments in this AFD and other comments in other AFDs if you are failing to assume good faith in regards to my actions. Otto4711 14:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep this is a perfectly legitimate article. It is NOT an "indiscriminate list" as described in the nomination.  This just needs more references, and the list at the end should be pared down. Crypticfirefly 04:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable topic and a well-written article with no significant policy problems. Please stop using "All X in popular culture articles should be deleted" as a criteria for AfDing articles. It is not Wikipedia policy. If a certain "X in popular culture article" actually shouldn't exist because of some Wikipedia policy, please cite that policy instead of your own opinions. Personal likes and dislikes have nothing to do with AfDs. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do and did cite the policies and guidelines that I believe require this article be deleted. Unsure why you're wanting to make this about what I supposedly like and don't like since I don't make WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, especially considering the number of times you resort to such non-policy arguments as "useful" or "could be cleaned up so keep it." If you disagree with my belief about how policy applies to this article, then refute the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 27 February 2007

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.  -- Neier 07:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Black Falcon already said why. Otto4711's idea that AfD is how we "hash out" what's wrong with an article does not follow our policies/guidelines/essays.  His AfD criterion seems to be if an article has "List of" or "in fiction" in the title. - Peregrine Fisher 07:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, I didn't say that AFD is for hashing out what's wrong with an article. AFD is for determining (or hashing out, which is a synonym for determining) whether an article meets or fails Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Nor have I ever said that "List of" articles automatically violate policy. Please don't misrepresent me. Thank you. Otto4711 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if that assessment of your recent debating style hurt your feelings, but I'm afraid that I agree with it too. All too much of your "reasoning" when arguing to delete these many articles has seemed according to your personal feelings rather than Wikipedia policy, and your personal feelings do seem to be heavily against "list" and "popular culture" articles. Plus, you do bring up a lot of flaws in articles that are not deletion criteria. A film list with a few erroneously listed films does not need to be deleted for that reason alone, nor does an article need to be deleted simply because the introductory paragraph is an abomination of bad grammar and unsourced assumptions. Please try not to bring up everything that is wrong with an article during an AfD; try to stick to problems that actually meet (or come close to meeting) deletion criteria. AfD is not the right place to discuss fixing an article unless the flaws are inherently something close to deletable level. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with "hurting my feelings." I did not say one word about my "feelings" and I have to wonder if your bringing "feelings" into this is an honest misreading of my comments or another in your long string of questionable comments in response to these recent AFDs. It has everything to do with not misrepresenting my words. Why you are bringing up the idea of deleting articles because of such things as bad grammar is a mystery, because I did not suggest that this article be deleted for bad grammar or for any other reasons of style. I nominated this article for exactly the reasons I stated, so it would probably be more helpful, not to mention refreshingly honest on your part, to respond to the things I actually wrote instead of responding to phantom allegations that were never made. Otto4711 14:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In your recent mass AfD of many articles, aimed especially at "list" and "pop culture" list-like articles, you've mostly (but not entirely) argued according to small flaws and also used emotionally-charged language and personal opinions in many cases instead of using actual reasons from Deletion policy that an article should be deleted. In saying that I hoped I wasn't hurting your feelings, I was trying to be polite, that was just a polite opening sentence because you already seemed quite worked up and I knew I'd go on to say some things that would sound less than flattering. It has nothing to do with my later statement that you keep bringing up criteria that are not deletion criteria, but rather wanting to delete articles according to your own personal feelings and interests. Trying to conflate those statements together makes it seem as if you aren't really paying attention when you read (something I'm beginning more and more to suspect is true of you) or that you're insistent on trying to obfuscate my points. As to the fact that you seem to be anti-list, your own statements on many of these AfDs support that, as does the fact that nearly everything you nominated was a list. I've asked you before, and I'll ask you here again, two questions. (1) Can you point out any instances in which you've voted in favor of keeping a list? (if you're afraid I'll miss your reply, you can drop a note on my talk page) and (2) If you want to continue calling me a liar instead of addressing the points I've brought up, will you please put your future accusations on my talk page? It really clutters up these AfDs. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, in the recent mass AFD of many articles, I pointed to WP:NOT and in some cases noted WP:FICT. I'm not sure why exactly you continue to try to misrepresent these nominations. As for your false claim that I am not citing actual deletion policy, I refer you to the chart at the policy page you linked entitled Problem articles where deletion may be needed. If you look at the very first box it states quite clearly that for articles in violation of WP:NOT and WP:OR the solution is to prod them or AFD them. I have acted entirely in line with Wikipedia policy, including the deletion policy, and for you to say otherwise is untrue. As for whether I'm paying attention, I'm not the one who voted on the athletes in film article without realizing what the article actually was. As for trying to obfuscate your points, I find that accusation laughable in the face of your repoeated distortions and untruths. As for whether I've voted in favor of keeping a list, the three-part answer is 1) whether I have or not is irrelevant, 2) yes I have and 3) not only have I voted in favor of lists, I've even created some. As for calling you on your lies, no, I'll continue to do so where you lie. Otto4711 04:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that you never cite Wikipedia deletion criteria policy. You usually have some sort of nod to deletion criteria policy in the canned phrase that you typically used on most of these mass AfD nominations, but then (except on those articles where the policy concern cited really applied) you typically have a flood of editors who agree that the policy you've cited simply doesn't apply to that article, at which point you tend to bring up every little flaw the article has or could have in the future, flaws that are not deletion criteria themselves, and then you try to argue that the article should be deleted on the basis of those flaws. The most obvious point raised in Wikipedia deletion policy is that normal editing concerns are not deletion criteria. That's why I keep telling you to stick to deletion criteria and use Wikipedia deletion policy instead of your personal dislikes. You should also note that I don't use emotionally-charged language such as "liar" to apply to you, despite that you keep seriously misunderstanding what I've said even when I've been quite plain. Instead, I point out the flaws in your tactics, and I sometimes call you "impatient" or "hasty" instead of saying that you are trying to cause trouble on purpose. Thus, I tend to describe you in good faith terms, as if you have done various things through accident, or through a genuine misunderstanding. In asking you to resrict the name-calling to my talk page, I was trying to keep all these AfD debates from being flamed. You can attempt to illustrate flaws in my arguments without resorting to such strong language. Please, if you cannot stay civil, I may eventually start assuming Bad faith on your part, as some others have already been leaning towards, but I'd rather not do that. If you think that it's so obvious that I've described you as doing something you're not, you can let others judge on their own (your statements above are plain for all to see) or you can use less emotionally-loaded language such as "Mermaid from the Baltic Sea is not describing my actions as I see them, in fact I think that what I did was ....". Please do stop it with the name-calling. The term "liar" is especially offensive. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if being called on your statements hurts your feelings. And I'm sorry if you choose to interpret nominating multiple articles with the same problems with the same or similar language as "canned responses." As for assuming bad faith, it's pretty clear from a number of your comments that you already do, which is fine by me because I know it's not true. And there is really no need for you to keep linking to the deletion policy. I have read it, and it says right on it in big ol' English words that the solution to articles which fail WP:NOT is to prod them or AFD them. I don't nominate articles by accident, I don't do it out of "misunderstanding," I do not make nominations based on what I do or don't "like" and I don't do it to solve editing problems. Your constant insistence that I do has gone past the point of being tiresome. Otto4711 22:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for any of the many reason listed above... Mathmo Talk 10:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, add more sourced citations. Ooh, and also add a sourced mention of Hiro Nakamura...  Smee 13:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep Needs to be fixed, but otherwise a decent article. MightyAtom 06:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Do we really need a source when anyone watching the film could see that a katana was used? Oh please. Macarenaman 08:21, 2 March 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.