Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Berserk chapters


 * 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 to delete. After extended time for discussion, consensus appears closer to keep, or, as a second option, to merge. bd2412 T 01:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

List of Berserk chapters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Berserk is notable, but there's no reason to think that a big list of the chapters is notable. I don't see much evidence in reliable sources that individual chapters receive any substansive coverage or reviews that would warrant the creation of such a list. This is material is WP:FANCRUFT and WP:LISTCRUFT, and it would be far more appropriate on a fan wiki than on here.

Fails WP:LISTN, with a total lack of independent, reliable sources that discuss this grouping. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - as with all articles in Category:Lists of manga volumes and chapters, such lists have long been considered appropriate for WP:SPINOUT reasons.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  10:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: You're citing WP:OSE and WP:OTHERSTUFF, which are arguments to avoid in deletion debates. In fact, I recently nominated List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force guest stars for AFD, and in there proponents of the page cited Category:Lists of guest appearances in television. Those arguments were as irrelevant in that AFD as they are here.


 * Further, there's nothing in policy that requires manga series to have all the chapters listed. Citing WP:SPINOUT is entirely circular: it assumes that manga series should have chapter lists as a starting position, then cites that policy because the pages would be too big, and thus should be split. But why should every manga series have a chapter list in the first place? Such lists seem to violate major policies: WP:RS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN.


 * WP:RS. Pages should have third party reliable sources. These pages, such as this one, typically don't. This page has only the publisher's website.


 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Lists of every manga chapter in every series seems to be entirely indiscriminate information. Even if limited to just series that pass GNG, it still seems overly discriminate.


 * WP:LISTN. There is a literally notability guidelines for lists, and this page violates them. I don't see anything in there that's an exception for manga chapters or such. LISTN says:

"'One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.'."


 * So has this topic, chapters of Berserk been discussed as a set topic in RS? This page literally has only publisher citations. I say that such lists are bordering on WP:FANCRUFT that is more appropriate on fan wikis and fan sites, but not here. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:ANIME: "For sections on anime series/OVAs, manga, and novels, include the appropriate list of episodes or volumes and chapters. If a given list is long compared to the rest of the article, consider splitting it out to a separate article titled List of (series) episodes, List of (series) chapters, List of (series) novels, or similar." Again, a split out is what has happened here. Chapters =/= guest stars; guest stars are a lot more indiscriminate so it's not a comparable situation.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  23:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As written, the MOS:ANIME seems to be advocating creating indiscriminate lists and seems to be in contradiction with other Wikipedia policies such as WP:LISTN. In any case, I don't believe a MOS can trump WP policies. It's entirely possible that those writing it never consulted other policies or thought too deeply about it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As per what Knowledgekid says below, if you have a problem with MOS:ANIME that's something that should be discussed at WT:ANIME as its an established guideline with a scope far wider than just one AfD.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  10:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete- per Harizotoh9's reply. Wikipedia is not a series of catalogue entries. This would be more suitable on a fan Wiki but not here. Reyk YO! 07:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I do not see any WP:FANCRUFT or WP:LISTCRUFT there though? How would basic information such as "release dates" or chapter names fall under that category? Category:Lists of manga volumes and chapters does come into play here as there are tens of articles that are structured the same way with the sources. You would just be scratching the surface of something with a wider scope which should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and possible rename to List of Berserk volumes since the list focuses on the volumes instead of the chapters. The main topic of the list is unquestionably notable as is covered by multiple reliable sources, and since the main topic is made up of individual volumes, a list of those volumes is appropriate per WP:SALAT. Likewise, when reliable sources review the work, they comment on the collection of chapters that are within a volume and over the course of multiple volumes as well. On top of that, there are a number of similar lists that are Featured Lists. I doubt that those lists would have been elevated to Featured List status if they were viewed as "indiscriminate collection of information". —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Or Merge. Sincerely,    Masum Reza ☎  09:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with Berserk (manga) or else Delete - does not meet WP:GNG - the references are to Berserk volumes and not to independent reliable sources - not notable enough by any guideline for a stand-alone article - Epinoia (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as a valid child article of Berserk (manga). &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - But merge could work depending. I'm concerned that this fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which advises that content is supposed to be a summary of accepted knowledge, not a complete exposition of all details. After the Contents box, what is there that is original to wikipedia? The page could likely be autogenerated by a script. It has formatting but no writing or editing. As with others, I think that this type of catalogue/database is better suited for a site focused on exhaustive coverage. And as for other lists currently existing, WP:OTHERSTUFF reminds us that the goal isn’t to set the bar as low as possible. Perhaps, as some mention, it would be worth a discussion at one of the higher level pages.


 * While many justify topic splitting as being a prescribed solution, there is also the option to reduce the text (both parent and child page). Has that been done? There shouldn’t be a rush to split the page. Just one obvious example, I have three screens of references that are fundamentally all the same and are unnecessary as there are no claims being made on the page, nor quotations WP:CITE, WP:REFBOMB, WP:CITEKILL. This is against 11 screens of the list. Does every chapter need to be listed? I haven’t looked closely at the parent page to see what edits might be considered there. Finally, WP:CSC suggests that there be restraint when it comes to "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group.” and recommends <32KB. ogenstein (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Several votes but half don't have policy based rationales, can't see a consensus yet.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge This is not notable enough to be its own article, but it should be merged with Berserk (manga). Syndicater (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge If it is considered that this content does not deserve a separate article, this article is better merged than deleted, surely if it is hidden behind a click on a table (like a spoiler button) it would not even occupy much space in the main article, after all. Garlicolive (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Chapter and episode list for notable series always have a separate article when long enough. If you want to change this it should be done in a proper discussion area, not in individual AFDs.   D r e a m Focus  17:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with Berserk (manga), since Berserk is notable -MA Javadi (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as a reasonable spinout topic. We do this all the time with TV series, comics, etc.  Too much information for a balanced article if merged, but not Cruft material. Hobit (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2019 (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.