Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zatch Bell! 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 Keep, non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Zatch Bell! chapters

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Strong delete. Unencyclopedic content. Nothing to be salvaged here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To clarify: This is a list of chapters in manga, not a list of manga. Please bother to click the article before commenting, thanks TheBilly (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, like the list of episodes this is nescessary, there many articles like this: Naruto, this is an AF Quality article, Bleach, Hunter x Hunter, Reborn!, this article need to be improved, not deleted. --Mastercomputerpro9999 (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a list of manga, it's a list of chapters. TheBilly (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not dissimilar to List of Bleach chapters, which only differs because it has nifty tables and release dates. JuJube (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mastercomputer9999, although not a strong one. Given that there's a lot of manga lists on WP, I don't think this nom was thought through very well. JuJube (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't make personal attacks, thanks. AfD is a debate, not a vote, and if your goal is to keep things you like then personal attacks only weaken your comments and work against you TheBilly (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where's the "personal attack"? Because questioning how well you thought this through is not one. Manga come in chapters. Your response above seem to indicate that you didn't know this. I'm just pointing that out. JuJube (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm very annoyed. Mastercomputerpro9999, you shouldn't make your point with confusing redirects. List of Bleach chapters does exist and there's no reason not to link to it. Changing my vote to Weak Keep since the Zatch Bell article at present is not much more than a list of English chapter names. It needs to be cleaned up to match the quality of List of Bleach chapters, by someone with information on the Konjiki no Gash!! manga (the original version of Zatch Bell). That's all. JuJube (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This confirm what i said: Improved not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastercomputerpro9999 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - What the nominator said is correct, the article is unencyclopedic and there isn't anything salvagable there. BUT, the article could expand greatly, as with the other list pages given above. I think that this is a legitimate comparison per WP:OSE (and one of the lists even had more, next-level lists!) and sets the precedent for this. Someone has another related page inuse and would do well to work on this list page next. On a note, I don't see a personal attack above either, though I can see where a comment made could be taken as one. Let's all assume good faith here and not take ANYTHING too seriously. It's the internet after all... VigilancePrime (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Quasirandom (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per WP:MOS-AM this is eactly the sort of information that should be included in a manga article, and per WP:SS exactly the sort of information that should be split off from the main article when it gets too large. The article's existence is, in fact, following guidelines. It needs major work to get it from its current unrated state to FL, but that's entirely a cleanup issue. — Quasirandom (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: As an aside, the reason individual chapters of a manga are considered significant is because they are published separately in serial form in magazines, and the bound volumes you usually see (if you're not in Japan) are actually republished collections. Whether Wikipedia also should include even more publication information about the serialization (dates and issues where each chapter appears) has been argued in FLC debates. — Quasirandom (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. Needs to be improved greatly, but that doesn't mean delete it. You don't need to delete articles just because they aren't up to par just yet. Work on them, and if they can't be improved at all then delete them. But as you can see from Naruto and Bleach chapter lists, they can be improved. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. List of books is perfectly alright. However! The names of these articles are quite awful - 'List of Foo chapters' really makes one think that it's just about the chapters (which is as bad as having 'List of scenes in episodes of Anime Foo'), when 'List of Foo books' or 'List of Foo volumes' makes the subject matter much clearer. --Gwern (contribs) 17:43 6 January 2008 (GMT)
 * Very strong keep Given the history of other similar lists reaching featured list status and the strong potential of this archiving the same, there is no rational reason to delete this list as indiscriminate collection of knowledge. It does need to be reformatted and expanded. See also the outcome of the a similar AfD at Articles for deletion/List of YuYu Hakusho chapters. --Farix (Talk) 17:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks alright. This may be cruft for some, but it's real-world cruft, exactly what's generally encouraged when fiction is concerned. – sgeureka t•c 13:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mastercomputerpro9999's comments. Page is sourced, it just needs expansion, that's all. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:03, 11 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.