Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Naruto: Shippūden (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Textbook example of What Wikipedia is not. —Angr 19:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot of Naruto: Shippūden
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Like Plot of Naruto before it, this article is just one big plot summary - a violation of WP:NOT. We already have List of Naruto chapters and List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes for those that need to know about the story. Last AfD ended in a huge anon/sock-fest, so I've preemptively placed just in case. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete BLATANT violation of WP:NOT.  Wikipedia is not the place for plot summaries! Corpx 19:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * keep this is helpful to American people who have no access to part two of naruto yet,or at least divide it into sectionsBlaze of merc 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * American people will have to look elsewhere, because wikipedia is NOT the place for plot summaries! This is the official policy and this article is in clear violation! Corpx 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete As per nom and first delete comment, this is not the place for plot summaries. Wildthing61476 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete We already have the story arcs which tells the important facts in each arc. However like what Blaze said, Shippuden is unknown to people who don't read manga in America. I lean toward the delete vote thought since the character's bio usually have the current plot part. -ScotchMB 22:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an informative plot and shouldn't be deleted because it helps others learn about the basis of the story      66.68.224.179 00:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is NOT the place to read about plot summaries. Its the official policy! Corpx 00:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is just plot summary and fails WP:NOT by design. Jay32183 00:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep In that case, we should just delete all movie and book articles too, as they are also just "Plot summaries." GET REAL PEOPLE! In reality,the only way we can create an informative article about this manga is if we talk about its plot. Otherwise, the most we could do without voilating anything is sa "Naruto:Shippuden is an extention of naruto. The end." Yea, real informative! In reality, even the most prestigious of paper encyclopedias will discuss some part of pop culture by using a "Plot summary." I say, if this is the only way this article can be even a little good, or informativ, so be it. No one is being hurt, and no one is getting upset. Trust me, if the author of this manga really had a problem with the plot summary of his comic being on this site, the administrators would hear from him. Otherwise, they are just splitting hairs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.123.31 (talk • contribs)
 * Real book and movie articles contain real world information, not just plot summaries. Just a plot summary is a violation of policy. Jay32183 01:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This article also contains real-world information as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.123.31 (talk • contribs)
 * Can you show me where this article has ANY encyclopediac content? Wildthing61476 02:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. The very first paragraph of this article. Anyway, when u say encyclopediac content, you mean the stuff you would find on the article naruto?
 * I dont know if there can be a clearer case for a "plot summary" than an article that says "Plot of ______". Blatant violation of WP:NOT Corpx 02:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP Like stated above, this is very useful to people who are not familiar with what is going on in Naruto II and is essential to those who wish to learn information on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.93.81 (talk • contribs)
 * Usefulness isn't a valid reason to keep. This article is still in violation of the policy WP:NOT. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep "Naruto: shippuden. So much more than a plot summary" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.123.31 (talk • contribs)
 * This discussion is not about the main article. This is only about the "Plot of Naruto : Shippuden" article.  Corpx 02:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Idea!: Is there a naruto wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.123.31 (talk • contribs)
 * Found this from a google search Corpx 03:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks corpx! But, this is good, but, there is very little detail as far as the plot of this story goes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.123.31 (talk • contribs)
 * WAIT, KEEP!!! I have just come up with a plan, but it will require some time. It will definetly get the plot summary off of wikipedia, but it will take some time, so don't delete the article just yet! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.123.31 (talk • contribs)
 * You can log create/login to an account and copy the page to your userpage or a subpage under your userpage. Corpx 04:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've struck out your subsquent votes. You only need to !vote in an AfD once. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've unstruck and unbolded them, they're not votes and neither are anyone else's. With notavote at the top here I hope we're all in agreement. --Random832 05:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've undone those edits. None of the opinions are votes, but it's important to at least highlight what we think should be done with the article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it's entirely unimportant, the arguments speak for themselves. Regardless, no justification is provided in your argument for why such "highlights" should not be provided with every comment that recommends a course of action, rather than just one per user. Unstruck. --Random832 08:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion points out (and recommends) that most voters bold their recommended actions. It doesn't give other users the right to mess with other people's arguments like you did, though. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The difference between an article on, say Gone with the Wind (film) and this is that the former shows how the movie was received, the historical context, the racism, etc. It has an analysis, not just a description of the plot. This article, on the other hand, just has a plot summary, and Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Veinor (talk to me) 05:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, if an article about a book went into chapter by chapter recap of the book, it will be in violation of WP:NOT Corpx 07:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Has no-one considered the possibility of a merge/redirect? --Random832 05:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP UNTIL ANIME GETS TO THE STORY What I mean is that keep the sections that the anime has not reached yet, retaining the information of the manga. When the anime reaches that particular story arc, then delete it. Apply this to List of Naruto episodes. The information was the same in Plot of Naruto, but it was deleted when the anime reached to that particular point in the manga. This should be the same for Plot of Naruto: Shippūden. Let's retain the information until the anime reaches to that particular point of the manga. After all, this will comply with the WP:NOT and it would contain information on where the manga is up to that the anime has not reached yet. Then Wikipedia would still contain information similar to an encyclopaedia and comply with copyright rules. -Omghgomg 06:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unpublished plot is still plot and a violation of WP:NOT Corpx 07:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well in that case, I suggest trim the article. There are thousands of articles with plot summaries like this page. However, they are not being nominated for deletion because their plot summaries are trimmed and kept to a minimum. So therefore, we should trim this page as well. After all, isn't it a big waste if we delete the WHOLE thing as many people have put time and effort in providing information to the general public. So instead, why don't we trim or even split it into different articles? - Omghgomg 09:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * in that case even though books provide real world info they still have detailed plot summries, i do agree it is to detailed and long which is why i said split Blaze of merc 07:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If an article about a show gets too long, its usually because there is too much text in there about the plot.  Wikipedia is not the place for season-by-season/episode-by-episode recap of a tv series.  This is what WP:NOT clearly disallows.  If the main article gets too big, trim out the plot details, as because plot summaries do NOT belong in wikipedia! Corpx 07:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Naruto: Shippuden episodes page and the Naruto chapters page do not show the plot so we should keep it. &mdash;The preceding comment is by User: (talk • contribs) : Please sign your posts! then split it into sections,or trim it downBlaze of merc 18:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per policies such as WP:FICT. A short plot summary is fine as part of a general article.  This by name is just a plot summary and is outside guidelines.  Many of the keep comments are based on other articles that are still on Wikipedia.  Per WP:INN that is no basis to keep this one.Obina 10:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete too much fancruft is included in the article and will keep being fluffed as long as the show goes on, which may take years. It's no different than the deleted Plot of Naruto, except it appears nicer. However, WP:ILIKEIT does not justify its continued existence. Lord Sesshomaru 14:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above arguments and the Plot of Naruto afd. --Pentasyllabic 16:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a length issue, splitting doesn't help. The article doesn't have real world context or secondary sources, splitting cannot fix that problem no matter how many times you suggest it. Jay32183 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete: As much as I am tempted to jump on the "keep bandwagon", after looking at wikipedia's rules for plot summaries, the article is a very, strong contender for deletion. However, the pure plot summary is quite good and this is why I am hesitant to throw the baby out with the bath water. Seeing as there are so many fans of this article, could I propose that they band together and save it with some proper editing. The article had been flagged previously for its content--or rather lack thereof--and no great changes were made to its format. This I believe is why it was proposed AGAIN for deletion. With that said, the easiest way to save the article would be to first split it into different sections for the different story arcs (three so far). Then for each section include some analysis. Most of those who wish for the article's continued existence must have some familiarity with the movies, comics, anime, and manga of popular culture. Just compare them with what you already know (no fluff) and remember your references. Others can then come along to help with and correct your analysis, allowing the articles to conform to wikipedia's standards. That said, it was a pity that the flags went unheeded for so long that the article became what it is. But I think that it will be an even greater loss if this information resource is deleted before the community is given a chance to fix it. 201.238.84.204 19:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you want the article Naruto to exist. Well it already does, so wish granted. Jay32183 19:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But that would highlight the inherent problem of nominating the article for deletion. If you believe that there is nothing to be said about the individual story arcs, outside of what is available in the parent article, character bios, ability lists, and so on; then should the article be moved and become merged with one of these? In the contributors' intent to be as reasonably extensive and exhaustive as possible, all of this information was submitted. For tidiness and better organisation these same characters, abilities, and plot summaries were separated for easier navigation. This should imply that all of Naruto's related articles are part of a larger whole: the parent Naruto article. While this may need improvement, I am not aware that the community has found any glaring problems with it. And if the plot summary is just a part of this parent then logically it should be allowed to stand as is. I, however, do believe that more can be said.
 * The problem with the plot summary lies with its length, which would make its inclusion into the parent article unsightly, and why it would exist better as a separate article. Think of it like this: what if a movie summary were done in this same format, that is separate articles for its characters, plot, box office performance, as well as the ubiquitios parent article? Let us take Sophie's Choice. After talking about the influences of WWII, non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust, Stingo, Sophie, Kevin Kline's character, and its Oscar wins in separate articles; when left to write ant entry for the plot, one may think that there is little else to say save for a condensation of the plot. This of course would not meet wikipedia's standards but can be easily remedied by consolidating all relevant information into one article. This would be pretty tidy as the movie lasts no longer than 2:30 hours. The same cannot be said for Naruto's unfolding story: the article would just be too long. Iconic, serial sitcoms like Seinfeld in their wikipedia entries, on the other hand, avoided their article length problems by doing what the Naruto articles have been trying to do: a parent article and then character, episode, and meme specific links from the former. Their episode plot summaries contain episode specific information, that may or may not be found elsewhere on wikipedia. This is the type of content I was speaking about when I suggested adding analysis to the Naruto plot summary article in order to fix it. And this is why, though it definitely fits the criteria for deletion, it may better serve the wikipedia community by fixing it rather than of deleting it.

201.238.84.204 20:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment This is starting to sound like a broken record. I really do not care about what happens to this article, but the decision should be made, instead of debating and bringing this up over and over again. 142.165.145.60 23:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or more specifically move. Yes, this does contain mostly plot summaries, just like every other currently popular fictional work, and yes, some aspects do make it different from other articles, notably summarizing it directly and adding in an after the fact statement that this covers the plot from manga volume xxx to xxx.  However, if you delete it, the issues discussed above will not be resolved.
 * By the way, I previously thought that "Useful" was a valid alternative to the "I like it" argument. People were saying something else here, but I would love for someone to set me straight on this matter.  Whichever it amounts to, this article is "Useful" and people clearly come to Wikipedia for the explicit purpose of finding out that Deidara is currently just about to deliver his final blow to Saske in the manga.  If you force the editors working on these articles to put it somewhere else, it's proper place in regards to the characters or whatnot, you're doing nothing more than hiding it.  WP:NOT does not say the information doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but it could be interpreted to say that it doesn't belong in the form of the current article, which I by all means agree with.  I do not think that an AfD is the correct action to deal with this, I believe that deletion will hide the problem and chase the information into little corners, not fix the problem.  Not to mention that this is a pretty central article to the series around Naruto, which I assume has significant work going into it seeing as we have as much as a portal for it.  Deleting will throw a fairly big wrench into the coverage surrounding Naruto because I don't see any other linear coverage of the manga.  Look at WP:NOT --> Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --> Plot summaries, and the policy finishes with A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic., which is why we have summaries for The Office, Scrubs, Firefly, and every other thing.  I beg of both sides to not introduce a bias in coverage by either NOT making this information available on Wikipedia or handling it in a in-universe fashion that summarizes by plot archs as opposed to episodes.
 * If it were up to me: I would
 * delete much of the article that is cruft. The recapping of information at the beginning, for instance, I think is fairly crufty.  I would replace this with information about the manga, it's significance, how it's read by up-teen million people, and so on and so forth, then I would take the rest (that is yes, mostly summary) and
 * Reorganize it into a list by manga episode. Doing so would make it no different than the examples I was listing before.  This would probably dictate changing the name to something more descriptive and possibly dictate doing the same thing to other articles, this is why I say move.  It really would not take that much work.
 * In conclusion, this article has problems but those shouldn't be fought by editing the article and not an AfD. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article isn't mostly plot, it is entirely plot. With the episode lists the plot can be remove and you still have content. A list of Naruto episodes exists. Have you actually read why being useful isn't valid. It also doesn't matter that people worked hard or that information is lost. Jay32183 04:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, if it had the plot summary following a list of episodes then you think that it should stick too. I've seen all the policies you've listed, except the information is lost one, that's new to me but I don't have a problem with it.  I never meant to say that it shouldn't be deleted because it's useful.  I was saying that deleting will just cause it to pop back up again in another form, deleting it won't fix the polices problems except for a short time, while at the same time it will cause nothing but a headache for the editors.
 * If this really can be a matter of "it should be deleted like it is, but would be okay if..." then end this discussion right now. People in the talk page were bringing up the fact that it was the 80 some most viewed article on Wikipedia.  I'm verified up to the 356th position.  No wonder people are complaining about random IPs shouting keep keep keep.  The user who started this AfD didn't even comment on that page except once for an unrelated issue.  I'm fine with these discussions being completely within the framework of the policies, and I think I'm playing by those rules, but speaking out of general common sense, if we delete one of the highest traffic articles with no preceding discussion about how we can change one or two simple things and avoid an AfD entirely, then that pretty well comes to "Wikipedia shooting itself in the foot". -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 06:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * oh, but thanks for the bit about WP:USEFUL. Is there a page of arguments that should be used in these AfDs btw?  Policies seem just so negative... (literally) -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 06:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep — WP:NOT/WP:SS. Matthew 12:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Good ref. I suggest we follow the advice quoted here just below WP:NOT. This says since it is not paper we could put in anything. But below it explains what else wikipedia is not, and specifically mentions pure plot summaries.  And for those who think this is useful, I agree.  Post it on a fan site and link it from here.Obina 16:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete — This is a clear copyright violation. It has only plot with little/no real world information. People always say they it will be fixed, but I haven't seen anything happen. I Love Pi 15:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Doesn't summarising plot constitute as fair use? xyzman 21:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A little plot summary is legal, but excessive information is copyright infringement.I Love Pi 22:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * i would fix it but i dont know how, heres a idea how about cuting most of it down enough to just have a small recap of the arc's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaze of merc (talk • contribs) 13:08, 1 July 2007
 * Delete. An ecyclopedia is not a story book. Wikipedia is not Naruto. This is a re-telling of the plot and Wikipedia is not the copyright holder of this story. --maclean 19:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an universal fan site for everyone. Its aim is not to collect as much info as possible, but to summarize it. And what we have here is a dump of raw info, which requires "cooking". xyzman 21:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm leaning on the keep bandwagon because there are thousands of articles that MOSTLY consist of plot summaries just like this page. An example is Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 3). While it may contain other information like actors and 'trivia', that article would be similar to the Plot of Naruto: Shippūden as it mainly consists of a plot summary that is being divided into subsections. Let's be honest here. Isn't this unfair that Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 3) is similar to Plot of Naruto: Shippūden in terms of the type of content within these two articles and only Plot of Naruto: Shippūden is being nominated for deletion. If Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 3) is not being nominated for deletion, then so shouldn't Plot of Naruto: Shippūden. -Omghgomg 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, just because other similar articles exist doesn't make this any more valid. Also it may be similar, but the real-world information on the Grey's Anatomy article is what is needed on articles about ficitonal subjects. Comapre to this article, which is entirely in-universe plot summary and where real-world impact is already covered at Naruto. This article also fails WP:FICT, WP:NOT and does not all follow the guidelines for writing about fiction. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait wait wait, WP:theotherexists has to do with citing a single example (or it could be more) of another article that is kept or deleted (usually for notability reasons) as an argument in an AfD. Here, we have a well established and agreed upon president that an article can exist being mostly summary as long as it follows real world stuff like airings of shows or releases of books.  Don't strike down this argument just because someone provides a sample link for your convince.  You said before that that information is already contained in List of Naruto chapters.  So far, people are agreeing that List of Naruto chapters combined with Plot of Naruto: Shippūden would not have the WP:NOT problem that this nomination is based on.  Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, if an article "A and B" would be fine, then "B" alone shouldn't be subject to deletion by an odd technicality.  An AfD should be our last resort in that case. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 03:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, my bad, I was wrong. I (wrongly) assumed that the article was similar to List of Naruto episodes and other episode lists, but now having taken a good look at the article, its details plot summaries of each episode is indeed in violation of WP:NOT. And I see it too has been nominated for deletion. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply! I hope we'll arrive at some consensus soon.  However, you did loose me a little there.  What other Naruto article did you mean is also being nominated for deletion?  All I see right now is the action figure article going to AfD, the list of episodes and chapters appear to be stable (relatively).  Thanks! -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant the Grey's Anatomy article is up for deletion, that's all. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep. this article has been marked for deletion a million times and it keeps passing. if it doesn't meet guidelines, then fix it. how obvious is that? just cut out a lot of the details and make the article about a page or so large. if u don't like the article, it's up to u to fix. u don't just get to delete things b/c u don't want to go to the trouble of fixing it urself. --24.96.180.56 01:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a problem that can be fixed by means other than deletion. Jay32183 03:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, you cant fix n article that is a blatant violation of what should not be on wikipedia. If a "Plot of ____" article isnt construed as a plot summary, might as well strike that line out of the WP:NOT Corpx 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * delete Plot of Naruto is dead and this too will die. For all the IP's wanting a reason as to why this is happening and don't want someone shoving something down their throat then listen up. The differnence between this article and other articles with plot in it is a matter of product for example amovie article explains not only what the movie is about but what the movie did in the real world like contriveries it created or how much money it made. This article talks only about plot and nothing else so it must go. Sam ov the blue sand 18:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am once again Neutral in this debate as I was in the other AFD. I can see where people are coming from regarding the want to delete this page, and I can see why people want it kept. I probably would have voted Keep if the List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes page wasnt as developed as it is now, along with all the other Naruto episode list pages. However, we also have moved away from plot summary in individual character articles, so I'm pretty sure most people are gonna have to go through a lot more pages if they want to find out about the show's storyline, instead of a central article. And looking at this page's position on the Most Viewed Pages chart, I'm assuming that's a large number of people. My only other objection to deletion is where to put plot info from chapters that havent been animated yet. With plot summary all but gone from character pages, and the List of Naruto chapters page devoid of any plot info, people who want to know about info that's happened in the manga after the current animated episode are going to have a very hard time doing so. Also, I'm amazed to see how many more anon IPs turned out for this AFD than for the one for Plot of Naruto... -- Ghost Stalker (Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 20:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, the anon partcipation shouldn't be a surprise considering how popular the page is to begin with and that the part of the story that Plot of Naruto covered is old news for awhile now. Still, this site shouldn't be a replacement for reading the manga or watching the anime (as some of the keep voters seem to mistake it for). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that, and I'm not saying that it is. But there are anons who treat this like that, and they will probably just make accounts to try and readd the deleted material or try and readd it in their own flawed ways. I'm not saying that it should be kept only for that reason, but you can't expect to delete one of the Top 500 most trafficked articles on Wiki and not expect it to have any repercussions, especially among the hordes of anons who do use this page. -- Ghost Stalker (Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 14:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the page is popular for a reason that violates policy. If recreated, WP:SALT the page and any subsequent pages.  Corpx 14:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, I think I cam up with a compromise that might satisfy most people here. Since this comment is already buried up here, I'm gonna post it at the bottom with a new entry. -- Ghost Stalker (Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 19:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Following the patterns of other manga and anime information articles, the information on this page should be dispersed through the individual character pages and episode guides related to Naruto. I like the page, and I visit it all the time, but no encyclopedia contains this amount of detail about referenced literature. JCruzMorales 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - since the last Afd, there has been no widespread movement to fix this article, and the only thing that has been added to it is more plot summary. Any relevant information to the characters is already summarized, and removing this page could perhaps be an impetus for improving other Naruto-related articles, particularly the Naruto article itself. We're going to see a mass of anons try to recreate this page though. =/ Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 00:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.   Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse )
 * KEEP!- Please! It's not fair that just about EVERY movie/novel entry spoils the plot for that entire movie/novel yet this can`t exist. If you don`t want spoilers then don`t read it.. The page isn`t hurting anyone or wikipedia. What if we PROMISE to make some of the eariler sumamries like the garra arc and hidan/kakuzu smaller!? Saying summaries are illegal is like saying If I tell my friend about a movie I`ve seen but he hasn`t is illegal since he didn`t pay for a ticket to know the story! Come ON! Please? :( Just save this page, I beg you... It isn`t fair that just because it's japanese and therefore we can't attach articles affecting the real world because of the language barrier that the page gets deleted while others of the SAME variety, plot summaries, stay up. Oh, and I just read this: A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Show me where, in any copyright case EVER, a plot sumamry has been taken as infringement. Show me ONE case. NEither does it violate wikipedia policy because of the aforementioned statement in WP:NOT 69.125.198.27 01:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - all those plot summaries that you are referring to for films, other series, etc are short, summarized plots that are appropiate, as a plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic per WP:NOT. As per the same policy, however, if a page is entirely plot summary, then it does not belong on Wikipedia. And in any case, this page really has no reason to stay - the primary Naruto article should be improved and incorporate this instead of attempting to fix the utter mess this article has degenerated into as the series progressed. Wikipedia is not a substitute for reading the manga. And if you see other pages like this, please report them =] Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 01:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * reply - Show me where, exactly, "As per the same policy, however, if a page is entirely plot summary, then it does not belong on Wikipedia. " this is stated in policy. This PAGE happens to be a part of a larger topic. IMO, it is not messy, it is broken up into paragraphs and arcs. Nor it is a subsititute for reading the manga. Manga is a VISUAL format. We may have one or two pictures every 20 chapters, ahrdly a violation. Mere text summaries in no way give the full expereince of reading a chapter of the manga. a picture is worth a thousand words, but there are only about 100 per chapter. Furthermore, "mess" is a subjective description that can`t really hold water in debate. It is as organized as it neds to be with breaks for arc and subsections within an arc, as well as paragraphs.69.125.198.27 01:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What's appropriate would be a short summary of the series in the main page. What's not acceptable is episode-by-episode recap of the story.   From WP:NOT, it states that " Wikipedia articles on published works.....(should not be) solely a summary of that work's plot".  This is exactly what this article is.  Corpx 01:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But "Plot of naruto" is not a single article. It may be a single PAGE on wikipedia, but is only a subsection of the larger naruto article. For the sake of page loading times, information on a franchise as big as naruto's is spread out on several pages. The key here is the word "article". Plot of naruto II is not a single article, it is a part of one. Naruto is a story told in a visusal medium. To have a truly revealing summary, one would need several scanned manga pages in the article as well as clips of the anime to be a serious violation. But text? Are you serious?   69.125.198.27 01:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Answer me one thing does this article have any thing to do with product or profit or has the plot started any contreversies? And saying the manga is the product doesn't count. Sam ov the blue sand 01:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Profit? What do you mean by profit? As for controversy, it is a timeskip 2 years in the future, which has had some mixed reaction(The Harry Potter article has a section on fan reaction) as well as viz reacting to such a huge change by starting the "naruto nation" campaign. 69.125.198.27 02:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Profit means what the subject has done for itself. I'm not talking about fan controversies I'm talking about lawsuits and other such things. Sam ov the blue sand 02:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "other such things" would include....? As for doing for itself, it has created a new movie and several new video games based on it. Many entertainment news websites have also written articles on the timeskip. 69.125.198.27 02:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This page is an article, see What is an article?. The page only contains plot. WP:NOT says article cannot be only plot. The only logical conclusion is to delete the page as a violation of WP:NOT. Sometimes merging works, but in this case it would cause bloating in the target article, so merging should be avoided. Jay32183 02:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you understand now that the only way to fix the article is to delete it and thank you Jay becuase I was alone for a second there. Sam ov the blue sand 02:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, deleteion is not the only way. the info can be split up and moved into each chapter's section on the chapter's page. Deletion would cost us one of wikipedia's most popular pages and an unnecessary loss of wanted information . Not to mention, as I statred earlie,r the sumamry is not encompassing enough to be a copyright violation for a primarily visual medium. I could split the sumamry up into each chapter on the chapter apge if no one else wants to.69.125.198.27 02:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Splitting the information does not solve the problem; it only relocates the problem. Pure plot summary still violates WP's policies. (2) People are using this article to keep up with Naruto, so it is clearly sufficiently detailed. I Love Pi 02:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit conflicts! 3 in a row. What he said and why is this info so important? Sam ov the blue sand 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 8 It is important to people who like naruto. and the plot sumamry would NOT violate policy if on a chapter list page, since it contains real-world information and context. And can you PROVE people are using it as the SOLE way to keep up with naruto, eschewing any other media and hurting the franchise? In fact, putting it on the chapter list page, in context, would remove the main factor for deletion, that the article is soelly plot summary, which it wouldn`t be on a chapter list.69.125.198.27 02:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Look if people want to read naruto then find an internet site, join that site, and every Friday you will get your Naruto like How I do or what other people do. And what real world information does this article contain, also what a chapter list would be ok but it would still be only plot nothing real. Sam ov the blue sand 02:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It may not matter to you, but many people use this as reference for discussion or fanfiction, the main use for many wikipedia articles. real world info on the chapter list page would be chapter names, volume imdb's, etc.. 69.125.198.27 02:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then why not use the other web sites for your fan fiction. No you don't understand what real world information is, its not chapter #'s its what this article has to do with the real world not how Sasuke is going to kick Diedara's ass next chapter. Things changes, get used to it. Sam ov the blue sand 03:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because other websites don`t have this information? And you don`t have to be so rude. this is a place for discssion, not personal attacks. And IIRC< chapter #'s and IMDB's are very much a part of the real world. Heck, there is a perfectly good hapter page for naruto chapters right here that is just waiting to be expanded upon.69.125.198.27 03:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok that was getting too long for me to read. When was I rude or gave out a personal attack and who are you to tell me about one of Wikipedia's Five Pillars I know the Policies I'm not a new user. Now with all that aside go to MSN Groups and search Naruto and find a web site called Naruto Manga Returns, they have all the chapters there and you don't have to join to look and read. And just because the Chapters are in the real world doesn't mean that it has to do with real world things. Sam ov the blue sand 03:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think then this can all be solved if a link to that page is put in the main naruto section if people want a bit of detail about the plot. they are sumamries there, not chapter scans, correct? AFAIK this is the only place with short summaries. BTW, the chapter page is actually here, if you want to see it. If what you say is true, then it should be deleted too as it contains no real world info by your definition. As should every charachter page for every anime except really famous ones which would make news, going by that logic.69.125.198.27 03:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah they have chapter scans page by page. No offense but don't be a smart ass. Lists are the ONLY exception to this policy I have no clue why but thats the policy. There has been discussions of deletions of the Charachters but the IP's and new users stopped us and the fact that the lists would be overly long if we did that. I don't want to do this all night so please except all the evidence put before and give up, you win some you lose some. Sam ov the blue sand 03:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion is about the PLOT of naruto, not characters. WP:NOT clearly says this is not the place for plot summaries. Can you please explain how this is not a plot summary? Also, please make an account because closing admins may not take comments from IPs into consideration. Corpx 03:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Corpx I don't think I've ever talked to you before, by the way where do you live becuase you're edits all seem to be later than others. I was talking about the charachters becuase he was being a smart ass about it sorry if I went a little off topic. Sam ov the blue sand 03:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at Star_Trek:_Enterprise. I think thats the extent of how much plot summaries are allowed. Some editors even think that's too extensive. (I'm in Texas btw)Corpx
 * Making acounts at places is always a huge hassle and another PW to remember. Our discussion led us to talk about policy violation and real-world information, and I was about to bring up the fact that charachter summaries and lists contain no such information. To delete this and keep others would be hypocrisy. To the new person who destroyed my last edit and made me retype this, I agree that this page should be deleted,a s it is ALL plot summary. HOWEVER, the information should be preserved and split into the chapter list page. 69.125.198.27 03:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I LOVE the way the enterprise sumamry is set up. Since one season is roughly 13 episodes, I`d say about the same amount there per 13 eps(or hoever many chapters that is) is in order, to be condensed at the end of each story arc. ALSo, I don`t WANT chapter scans page by page, as that site provides. Now THAT is copyright violation. A short summary for reference is not, and is preferrable to everyone who dosen`t want to violate things.69.125.198.27 03:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What "chapter scans" does that article provide? It provides a short season summary.  Corpx 03:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the chapter scans comment was directed toward blue sands about the other site he mentioned. 69.125.198.27 03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We are under no obligation to hunt down every violator of policy before we can deal with any violations. Jay32183 03:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly understandable. I just don`t want any hasty descisions to be made and all the information to be lost forever. Cna we discuss the proposal of shortenting the summaries into each chapter and moving them to the chapter list? that way, the article will not be ONLY plot summary, and therefore not violate policy. 69.125.198.27 03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can create an account and WP:USERFY the article to work on it later. As it stands now, it is in violation and should be deleted.  Corpx 03:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My name is Sam not blue sands. And that site has premission to do that. PLease get an account and when you sign in check remember me so it will remember you when ever you enter Wikipedia. And Corpx I live in Indiana so not that much of a time difference. Sam ov the blue sand 04:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * keep. all i'm going to say is this: this article may need clean up or division but it is very informative about the subject matter, the series is very confusing for those who haven’t seen EVERY episode and this form of documentation seriously HELPS… I’m not sure why it is such a problem other than the fact that is has grown a little lengthy…  deletion is an overkill all it needs is some pruning and organization 76.48.204.53 06:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not intended to help people with their questions about tv-show plot Corpx 06:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * maybe someone ought to clarify what it is intended for as there seems to be much confusion, and in any case its more of a cultural barrier reconciliation thing than it is a "q&a forum" ... i use it all the time to do back-story research as they are long and winding and hard to understand from a non-native perspective, and to be rather honest i don't think this can replace any "illustrated work" regardless of the level of detail, it is after all a verbal description of art work its not like there is dialog transcriptions... i am standing by my original opinion that this article (though in need of trimming) is purely of a supplemental informative nature and doesn’t violate the nature of Wikipedia in any way other than being in need of clean up –c 76.48.204.53 06:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Does WP:NOT address this issue? "Wikipedia articles on published work....(should not be) solely a summary of that work's plot.". Corpx 06:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure it glosses across the topic however it also makes mention to "... not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." and that is what it is though obviously in its own namespace due to the length it has achieved.. surely you agree that this cultural straddling anime is worthy of note? and surely you would also agree that anyone interested in its profound popularity and unique universe is entitled to a wealth of information that can be legally provided via this tool? so i really don't see how you can support deletion of something that requires an explanation in order for it to be culturally relevant -c 76.48.204.53 07:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The main article got long because somebody added an episode by episode recap in it.  This info should not have been added in the first place.   Since it got too long due to the newly added plot recap, it was ported over to a new article.   You cant argue for keep because it was contained plot summary in the first place and was moved over to a new page.   WP:NOT refers to WP:FICT, which states that " the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply to summarize them".  The main article got long because users started to summarize each episode instead of just describing it.   Corpx 07:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * good man, i thank you, what we need to be focusing on is this litttle bit "In some cases, sub-articles and lists are created when the potential for an encyclopedic coverage is hindered by the recommended length guidelines for articles." since it is okay for articles of such a descriptive nature to exist as per the guidelines, surely we need be focusing on the concision and not the existence -c 76.48.204.53 07:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The exception is for "encyclopedic coverage" which causes the main article to exceed length. If the exception was for the plot summaries, it would contradict the first 2 lines.  Encyclopedic coverage is referring to expanding the characters and other major events in the show/movie.  The examples below further prove this point as they're all about characters and major events. Corpx 10:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * more comments (I've already directly expressed my position) - There was some discussion about the nature of the use of this article by users. Perhaps me providing my personal story will help a little.  I read the manga.  But reading it in Japanese, I find it useful to check english summaries for the purpose of comparing to what I got from it.  I read them when I was in Japan too, it was a Monday ritual to buy the new Jump magazine and tear through the pages.  For comformation, I would find myself going to Wikipedia.  Guess what comes first in Google searches?  That's right, this article.  You all know this.  I'm not arguing this for my personal benefit, that's ridiclous.  Any competent person can take 10 extra minutes and find another summary, having an article like this is maybe a little for the fan's benefit, but more so for Wikipedia's benefit.  I believe that this article is being used for educational constructive purposes, which falls perfectly in line with the purpose of Wikipedia.  Level of detail shown is a contention point.  Even I don't care to see a summary of every head turn and flap of a wing (though maybe when a wing gets cut off I do care).
 * strong contention point - WP:NOT - "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." The biggest question of this debate seems to me to be:  Does this apply to one article or the series of articles?
 * plea to the decision maker - This CAN go in a number of directions. If you go with deletion, please try to make it easier to add this to the other articles.  And weather the answer is delete or keep, please suggest some logical restructuring.
 * plea to the IP users - your oppinion does count here, but please understand that arguments are made in the framework of the policies here. Many of you are making great common sense arguments, but some are on the verge of scoffing at the rebuttals consisting of nothing but links to policies.  If you carefully go through the policy I think you'll find that your argument can be still be made strongly made, but please make concessions to those policies and other oppinions on this page.
 * plea to (some of) the experienced users - If this were such a simple matter of summary in the title violates WP:NOT and there's no room for interpretation, then we wouldn't have this discussion. Please justify your stuff instead of making smart aleck comments.
 * I've put my thoughts in this format to avoid attacking any particular user. I hope this was helpful, I just want to move the discussion along some.   And you neither side can do that when they don't give considerable heed to the other's argument. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 06:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is just not the place to come read about what happened on your favorite tv show or comic.  It is one thing to give a short recap on the happenings of the season, but it is entirely another thing to have an episode by episode recapitulation.   I also dont think "benefit of wikipedia" should come into play here.  Wikipedia's aim is not to increase the readership/use of the site, but to "incorporate general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs" into one.   Corpx 06:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT - This states specifically that arguments that the subject is "unencyclopedic" should be avoided. If this contains episode recapitulations that are proved to be within the policy framework of Wikipedia, then get out of this discussion.  If you see something covered that you don't like, then suck it up and go edit something that you do like.  That is how Wikipedia works.  You didn't even address what I said above, and you're the closest to what I would call a blatant anti-anime disposition.  Do you go onto AfDs for major movies and shows and say these things too?  Please discuss weather we're allowed to have this article as opposed to weather you like it or not, and so far, we're allowed to do what you were mentioning in your post here. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * does this not qualify as a specialized encyclopedia? -c 76.48.204.53 07:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's referring to the encyclopedia's that Physicians use or the ones that Lawyers use. Corpx 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the definition of specialized encyclopedia anywhere in that link, an apology for my ignorance if you could point me to said information i would be much obliged -c 76.48.204.53 07:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * surely if these can be considered encyclopedias then why not naruto? how does star trek differ from naruto? perhaps i have further confused the topic but if the universe of naruto could be an encyclopedia under the "specialized" category does not that mean that it should have some description of event that take place in said universe? almost like a WWII encylopedia having a description of battles.. -c 76.48.204.53 07:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You wont find any articles here from encyclopedias about fiction.  Even then, I highly doubt the star trek encylopedia provides an episode-by-episode recap of the happenigs.  I dont see how you're comparing WW2 to a TV show.  WW2 is not fiction.Corpx 07:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * rightfully so, and thats why the article need be abbreviated and alleviated not obliterated, and surely the Encyclopedia_Galactica or any other such reference material would have event descriptions the point wasn't to compare real life to fiction, of course not but to relate the relevance of events to the universe as it were in as a whole, so basically a description of a "universe" (which i use loosely here) as it where to an encyclopedia has no relevance to whether or not it is fiction or fact, be it just to the "universe" as a whole so if there is a right for such specialized encyclopedias to exist and that encyclopedia's coherency would be compromised by the exclusion of such materials then surely you would agree that the materials are necessary to the encyclopedia's existence as a whole as it were? -c 76.48.204.53 07:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're taking a way too broad defintion of "specialized encyclopedia". Anyone can print a book off and call it an encyclopedia, but that doesnt mean its content should be included here.   Since anyone can create fictional content (comics), the book will be sufficiently sourced on that content.  I could create a comic series, then print off an encyclopedia that goes with it and it should have no bearing on wikipedia.  The reference point should be one that's used for professional purposes, like doctors/lawyers and have real world applications that are verifiable.   Corpx 10:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, redirect to List of Naruto: Shipp%C5%ABden episodes. I don't watch Naruto, but the episode list seems more than sufficient if I want an idea of what's going on in the show.  Snarfies 13:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the manga and anime aren't synched. the manga plot has developed far ahead of the anime so redirecting to the episodes would drop developments that haven't occurred on the anime yet. the point isn't to find out what's going on in the show but to have a plot overview of the manga. --24.214.236.85 14:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which this article is not, but a summary of the manga, which is against WP:NOT. Wildthing61476 14:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And we have List of Naruto chapters, which makes it not a violation of WP:NOT. Or do you disagree? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * List of chapters do not violate [{WP:NOT]] by themselves. What I have a problem with, and why I feel it needs to be deleted is that this page is just a plot summary, nothing more, nothing less. Wikipedia's not designed to be a fan page with detailed descriptions explaining the plot of movies, anime, manga, etc. A short summary might be in order on the list of episodes, but not an entire article dedicated to just summarizing the plot of an anime. Wildthing61476 18:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Therefore, as suggested in an above post, merging this article with the List of Naruto Chapters would result in an article that was NOT a violation if the summaries per chapter were to be shortened and placed in context of each chapter. To Sam of the blue sands, people who come here do not want to read full manga scans, as they do not want to be spoiled or only want a tantalizing summary at what is to come when they obtain the manga or anime in other ways. Not to mention, for reference purposes, this article is much more suitable than wallowing through hundreds of manga pages. 165.230.31.178 20:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Avatar: The Last Airbender is a featured article. It has about screen-height worth of summary, and its accompanying episode list has about two short sentences on average per episode. It also has a full page per episode. This page has on average half a paragraph per chapter. I Love Pi 16:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to read the manga then find a website with manga scans and join and then every friday you will get your Naruto. And besides why are argueing with the IP's when admins don't take their opinions into acount? Sam ov the blue sand 16:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * IP's opinions ARE taken into count, however established users are seen as more "credible" Wildthing61476 16:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh last time I checked I thought IP's opinion didn't matter. Oh well I guess its more fair this way. Sam ov the blue sand 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

wiki == documentation of all things.. culture being one of them culture == what is "popular", "trend setting", "influential"...and so on culture as it is in an encyclopedia == documention of of said and unsaid elements to the point of an aproximation of comprehnsion now as it were, i know its hard to believe but naruto is a cultural icon so understanding naruto is understanding an element of a particular cultural timeframe and its values so with your own guidelines taken to heart, the article need be rectified, yes, but not destroyed to someone reading about modern jpn. cutural refrences and impacts on a global scope this information will be invaluable.... now once again i AM NOT SAYING.. that it does not need work and to leave well enough alone, but i imagine the destroyer point of view must come from youthfulness and the want to break and build, but as i said wouldn't the energy be better spent influencing the worker "ants" as it were? more can be said of leadership then yelling at others for a project's shortcoming, so respect is what i give to the rightful project leaders and their ability to understand others point of view as it were... -c 76.48.204.53 00:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposal - Bear with me here, because this proposal might get kinda long. However, i think I came up with a compromise that might satisfy most parties. For now, we either Transwiki this page to the Naruto Wikia or to someone's Userspace. We use this article as a base to facilitate the next part of my proposal. Now, on the List of Naruto chapters page there is currently a list of all the Volumes that have been released, as well a list of the chapters that have not yet been put into tankōbon format. I propose we take the relevant information out of this article and summarize it into a short paragraph or blurb of no more than 5 - 10 lines regarding what happened in that Volume. These summaries should be a little bigger than the current episode summaries we have in List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes and the Naruto episodes by Season articles. Currently, there are 38 Volumes that have been released in Japan. That means adding 38 decently sized paragraphs to that article right now, with a new Volume, and therefore, paragraph added every 3 months or so. The next part of my proposal is to write a slightly larger summary of no more than 3 to 5 paragraphs to summarize the chapters that have not yet been published in tankōbon format. As new chapters come out, we update this summary. As new Volumes are released, we delete the relevant chapters from the larger summary and either write a new summary for what happened in the Volume or move the relevant information from the larger summary to the Volume area. That way we can still have a summary of the Naruto plot, without it being too bloated or violating WP:NOT. So, what do you guys think? -- Ghost Stalker (Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 20:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Summarizing volumes would be acceptable, though summarizing uncollected chapters would be more trouble than necessary. Not only would it rapidly become 10 paragraphs in length due to excessive detail, but it would also be prone to size fluctuations as a result of build-ups of un-volumized chapters. Can you imagine what it would look like if Naruto fell as far behind as Bleach? Only summarizing volumes would be much easier. ~SnapperTo 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - this would require splitting the List of Naruto chapters article due to size issues, but would be acceptable. A similar (or somewhat similar) thing is seen at List of Bleach episodes, where arcs are briefly summarized independent of the actual episode lists. Also, it would create impetus to improve the List of Naruto chapters page, which is good. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 23:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That would depend on how long of a summary each volume receives. One paragraph probably wouldn't cause problems, though two or more likely would. Besides, it seems likely that Viz will re-number the volumes once they reach Part II at the end of the year, so some sort of split might be necessary anyway. ~SnapperTo 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment if someone could take the time to explain to me why this is anything more than a cleanup issue, it would be greatly appreciated, and please no "snappy" one liners from the wiki-vets who just link you to a random page without any incite as to what or how anything should be interpreted, this just caught my curiosity it almost seems as if a handful a people who were not affiliated with this page until this all began are popping up all over the place, i guess what i am trying to say is rather than sitting here and blasting everyone who is a fan of the articles put together on naruto and work to cultivate and preserve whats here to the point that, this discussion is now 65k, wouldn't a "real wikipedian" find his or her time better served trying to create something new to replace the article in question? ...so that the creators and contributors wouldn't feel so sh*t out of luck? -c 76.48.204.53 23:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's unsuitable for Wikipedia because it's completely plot summary. For fictional subjects like Naruto, any related articles must talk about real world impact of the subjects. An article that just retells what happened in the plot is a in-universe story with no information on real-world impact. Not only that, an article that is detailed to the point where people use it to follow the story instead of reading the manga or watching the anime (which a number of readers of this article have admitted to doing) is in danger of being a copyright violation. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a cleanup issue because there really is no point in keeping the article. Having an article solely for the purpose of having plot is pointless, and does violate policy, specifically WP:NOT. The only reason that an article on plot should be maintained is that there is something truly unique that can be supported by out-of-universe sources, thus passing WP:N and proving itself notable in a real world context. And following policy is important, lest Wikipedia would degenerate into anarchy and become pointless. Anyway, this article should be incorporated into the central Naruto article (which needs to be aimproved anyway). As to your concerns about a proposal, read above. In any case, before you take potshots at the editors here, many of whom have made quite admirable contributions to Wikipedia, read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. We appreciate respect and courtesy, and would enjoy it if you followed that as well. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 23:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * i was being civil, but you hardly are, so WP:CIVIL did i do that right? any how i am just trying to say that i don't think the naruto documentation is going to hurl the wiki into anarachy, and or make it "worse" in any way as something that touts itself a collective of knowledge you thing something such as an importaint cultural refrence would be imparitive, but the truth is: if naruto was dead and finished this wouldn't be an issue just because something is "hot" its almost like it attracts both enthusiasts and ... well what ever you would call them... anti-enthusiasts i guess? point is now follow me here:
 * Wikipedia is not documentation of all things. See WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING for further explanation. Jay32183 00:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom as redundant to List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes. WP:USEFULness is not an acceptable argument to keep an article that is in clear violation of policies, such as WP:NOT. However, that also doesn't mean one should go on an WP:ALLORNOTHING campaign to have every article about a book, movie, anime, or manga. WP:NOT mealy prevents articles that are nothing more then plot summaries with little to no real-world context, sourced annalist or critical commentary. Generally small plot articles can often times be fixed by adding in such information and controlling their size. But when you get to the scale of this one, it's far to big to clean up and you are better off deleting. --Farix (Talk) 02:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For those IP's that think they're the only ones who care for the Naruto articles then look at any Naruto pages history and you will see most of our names there, maybe not mine becuase I work in the talk pages more than anything else. I think thsi is starting to get too out of hand Its become a battle of IP's vs Users and that usally (in what I've seen before) can turn very ugly. This page should be deleted for the reasons given and I hope that the admin knows what's right. And besides what's the point of having this if there's no regular Plot of Naruto any more, where were all these IP's when we were deleting that? Sam ov the blue sand 03:54, 4 July 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.