Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of special techniques in Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo


 * 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 of the debate was delete by clear consensus of actual editors involved. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

List of special techniques in Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo
More fancruft that belongs in GameFAQs. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, not a how-to guide, etc. Calton | Talk 20:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ??? I'm not sure how something about a television show belongs in GameFAQs. See Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo. Kotepho 21:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was nominating a bunch of similiar articles and I got confused/careless. --Calton | Talk 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Kotepho is quite right; this is a list of "special techniques" from a television show. From the sound of things, though, the show is intentionally absurd, and makes up attacks on the spot. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 21:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Having seen one episode I would tend to agree with you. It is a parody of shōnen shows. Kotepho 22:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain I don't know where to throw this one. Maybe wikia:c:Anime? Kotepho 22:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep What makes this different than any of the other special technique lists on Wikipedia? There's ones on Pokemon, Dragon Ball, Superman... special techniques, even ones in a parody manga such as Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo are an integral part of enjoying a series, whether a comic, cartoon, novel, TV show, et cetera - where the characters have special powers. If this article is not sufficient, would making subsections under a character's article work better? The S 01:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes this different than any of the other special technique lists on Wikipedia? Nothing, really -- and they should all go into the bit bucket as fancruft, minutiae that is not of the slightest interest to anyone outside the circle of fans of those specific shows (and perhaps not even then). Point me to those lists and I'll nominate them for AfD in a hot second. --Calton | Talk 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What makes this article different is that these "special techniques" sound like they're more or less ad-hoc: they aren't used more than once or twice in the show. If some of the techniques are used repeatedly, they might deserve an entry in the main article. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The same thing applies to a majority of Son Gokuu's techniques in Dragon Ball; he only uses a handful of them more than once or twice. As for these lists being considered "fancruft", fancruft seems to me to be more or less a matter of opinion. Even Wikipedia's policy on such seems to be rather ambiguous on the subject. The S 17:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems a reason to not list those techniques on Son Goku's page, then - not a reason to list more similar information here. As far as fancruft goes, a reasonable working definition (given on WP:CRUFT) is that fancruft is material which is only of interest to a small set of fans, and which has no relevance to the world at large. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 19:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ...Which would account for 90% of the pop culture topics on Wikipedia, no? The S 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Hint: what does the word "pop" in "pop culture" mean? --Calton | Talk 02:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think this is relevant; about as relevant as the topic on the media it stems from. By what you're saying, there is no difference between cruft and pop culture; it sounds like you're talking yourself in circles. User:Demran 13 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC) User's first edit
 * Delete as being well beyond the level of detail which would be of any interest whatsoever to anyone who did not already know it. Fancruft?  I would say so.  WP:NOT this indiscriminate.  Oh, and what makes it different is that at least two of the other examples, Pokemon and Superman, have a following several orders of magnitude larger. Just zis Guy you know? 17:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So... you're basing this on relative obscurity? If Bobobo became, say, the new hot thing in the United States, or Europe, or whatever, than that would justify it? The S 18:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * More a matter of exclusion. Trivia about massively notable fictional subjects is at best debatable; trivia about minor fictional subjects is unequivocal (for me anyway). Just zis Guy you know? 18:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, this contributes to what sounds to me like deletion based on cruft, at times (such as this) is based on a Wikieditor's opinion more than the guidelines given by Wikipedia. The S 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And there was I thinking I had cited policy. Just zis Guy you know? 22:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: If there is an entry for every Pokemon and Digimon creature, or for dark characters in old cult movies, it's totally reasonable to keep an attack list. Part of the sarcasm inherent to the series could be best appreciable with a full description of attacks. User:Lord Beelzebub (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per nom. Sandstein 16:14, 26 April 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.