Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece manga (English version)


 * 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 merge to One Piece anime (English adaptation). Redirecting for now, editors on this topic can merge content as called for. W.marsh 22:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

One Piece manga (English version)

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Almost entirely original research with few sources cited. --Farix (Talk) 03:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Related One Piece discussions:
 * Articles for deletion/One Piece anime (English adaptation)
 * Articles for deletion/Post-Enies Lobby arc (AKA One Piece plot summaries)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.   -- Farix (Talk) 03:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's not a separate thing from One Piece. --tjstrf talk 03:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge Seems like a pretty extensive and, indeed, interesting and informative article (and I am not a fan of One Piece - never seen an episode of it). In fact, these articles have more sources cited than most anime articles.  Should be merged with One Piece anime (English adaptation), maybe cleaned up a bit, more citation perhaps?  I dunno, maybe my standards are low. Snarfies 03:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Extensive, yes, but it basically amounts to WP:NOR-violating fanboy whining about what are generally minuscule changes, while your suggested merge target is an anti-4kids slaughter piece. --tjstrf talk 04:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Accusing someone who disagrees with you of being an "anti-4kids fanboy whiner" is not the way to get your opinion accepted by others.  — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 14:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't really feel he did that. No hard feelings. Snarfies 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. Interesting, verifiable, and as far as I can see doesn't violate any guidelines, though it probably needs quite a bit of trimming. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 14:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is verifiable, it needs to have third-party citations from reliable sources. However, if it is just the editor comparing two images, then it's original research. --Farix (Talk) 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not seeing the part of WP:OR that the picture in question is (in theory) violating...? Would a picture of a red apple and a green apple to illustrate the difference be a problem as well? Snarfies 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment A man presents you with two fruits. An apple in his left hand, and an orange in his right. However, he has no third-party citations from reliable sources actually stating that there is in fact a difference between his aledged apple and aledged orange. The existance of the man is not considered note-worthy until appropriate findings are published in a scientific journal. -13:23, 29 January 2007 (WST)
 * Merge. It works for Sailor Moon (English versions). --Masamage 03:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For both of these "English version" articles I think they should at least be merged together into one page, if not merged into a smaller section in the main article. FredOrAlive 17:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge Definitely needs to be cleaned up, but I honestly think it would be a waste to trash a resource like this. Perhaps with more images to illustrate changes made. And I'm sure it'd be easy enough to find some citable source of public outcry if you wanted. -13:30, 29 January 2007 (WST)
 * Keep/Merge. Per Snarfies. Jerry lavoie 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the whole discussion about the orange and the apple above is hilarious! Jerry lavoie 23:34, 29 January 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.