Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naruto the movie (series)


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 22:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Naruto the movie (series)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

New article consisting solely of a table listing who did and didn't appear in the first three Naruto films. Creator may have been shooting for a List of Naruto films, but this wasn't the right way to do it. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 20:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- 「ダイノ ガイ  千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 20:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't second you concerning this article as this one was only up for 15 hours and it got Afd-ed regardless the quality of the article which is extremely poor. Even of prod would not have been that fast. I concede that the article name is not suitable. I concede that the article was started from the wrong end. I concede that making a table like in Naruto:_Clash_of_Ninja_(series) is not appropriate. but still :( --KrebMarkt 20:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not against the possibility of this AfD being closed as keep, with the suggestion to rename and broaden the article. however, it seemed to me like it would be easier to just start over, hence the AfD. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 20:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Yea, Naruto would have a movies spin-out article eventually but not in that form. While your intent is respectable, its perception may not be sadly. I hope you won't pass for bully --KrebMarkt 21:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm acutely aware of the intimidation a big red "this page is up for deletion" banner can cause... My intent definitely isn't to bully or intimidate, but I'm not blaming anyone who might think otherwise. =( 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete completely unnecessary. Naruto has a character list. Beyond that, a simple note in the film's production section (presuming they are notable) discussing the creation of film only characters is all that is necessary. Making a table of who did and did not appear in the films seems both redundant and extremely trivial. I'd imagine most characters did not, from the large pool available, with only the main ones being consistent. They are already far over used in the video game articles, much less for something like this. Surprised it wasn't just CSDed for a complete lack of context beyond those who know what Naruto is.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought about CSD, but was too lazy to see if anything was applicable (since I don't have the criteria memorized like you evidently do =) ). 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 20:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, I don't have them all memorized, but I do have Friendly and Twinkle :D -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD, no context. This appears to be a misplaced template? But even as a template, it would be completely unnecessary. --Farix (Talk) 15:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A table showing who appear in each movie, same concept than the one used to show which character appear in each Naruto battle video games but still a failure.--KrebMarkt 20:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Creator of this article made no effort to salvage the situation. Wrong article name, wrong way to handle the subject and wrong way to answer the Afd (no reaction at all) --KrebMarkt 16:06, 27 February 2009 (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.