Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Naruto (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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The article is entirely plot summary. Main article contains a plot summary. WP:NOT#7. Jay32183 05:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT,7 states "Wikipedia articles on published works should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Bolding is my own emphasis. This article is an aspect of the larger Naruto subject and was forked in a natural wiki process of keeping the core article concise. WP:NOT#IINFO,7 does not rule out this article existence by default. Please ensure all "delete" comments take this into account. –Gunslinger47 05:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * An article may not contain only plot summary no matter what else going on. This article is designed to fail policy. Whenevr an article is "Plot of X" it fails WP:NOT#7. The part of the larger topic means when the article contains real world information. In this case it is impossible. Any result other than delete is a violation of policy. There is no argument to keep, and there will never be one. Jay32183 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll need to help me understand this, because simply reading the section and #7 doesn't make the argument for deletion without prejudice very clear. This article was created as a fork of Naruto and is an aspect of the larger subject of Naruto.  It is possible for articles containing just plot summaries to be appropriate.  If I am misunderstanding this, please direct me to where your point is explicitly mentioned.  –Gunslinger47 22:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your question would be answered if you read the first part of statement. It very specifically says that an article may not be only plot summary. The ending says that plot summaries may be included when talking about other stuff. This article does not talk about other stuff. You should also read WP:WAF. "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective." This article contains no out-of-universe perspective and there is no means to correct this problem. Jay32183 22:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Conceded. –Gunslinger47 23:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If that truly was the logical extent, then it would make sense to merge this, not to delete it. However, it seems pretty clear that the spirit of the rule is to make sure to include non-plot info about a work - that is, not that plot summaries are forbidden, but that when they are the only coverage of the work on wiki, they are not allowed. You know, part of that whole WP:Ignore all Rules, thing, instead of being needlessly bureaucratic.KrytenKoro 05:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Jay, did you look at the previous AfD nominations for this topic? Unless you really think there will be a different outcome here than there was 2 months ago on Plot of Naruto: Shippūden, you may just be wasting our time here. --tjstrf talk 05:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as pure plot summary. Wikipedia plot summaries should be "treated briefly" (from WP:WAF). A summary detailed enough to require a spin off is too detailed. --Eyrian 05:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 05:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it's a plot summary, and as the nom points out, violates WP:NOT. Kwsn (Ni!) 05:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per clear violation of WP:NOT. Otto4711 06:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT#IINFO,7 does not apply in this case, as I explain above. You'll need to explain yourselves more fully or your comments will not count. –Gunslinger47 20:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a mere plot summery. Also taken care of by List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 1-2), List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 3-4), List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 5-6), and List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 7-9). --Farix (Talk) 11:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above reasons. There is no need to go that in depth into a plot. It can easily be covered by the main article in general and the season articles can be used for giving details. TTN 12:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per TTN and Farix. We're better off working on List of Naruto chapters and List of Naruto episodes than keeping an unmanageable plot summary that is contrary to a number of Wikipedia guidelines (WP:NOT). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Additionally, this nomination also should've included Plot of Naruto: Shippūden, which continues on from this article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Including that would have almost certainly resulted in a no consensus. IPs and new users are much more defensive of the Shippūden summary than they are the Part I summary. ~SnapperTo 03:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Jesus Christ this article is long! --Potato dude42 04:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. As a neutral party, I suggest a move to migrate whatever is written in this article into any established Naruto wiki licensed under GFDL. Deleting so many months of work is a plain waste. If this isn't acceptable in Wikipedia, at least hand it over to specilised websites. - 60.50.54.92 11:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that notion. Good idea.  Kwsn (Ni!) 21:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Overly detailed plot summaries are not GFDL compatible. They serve as a replacement for experiencing the copyrighted work. Jay32183 21:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I never stated any retention of everything. The purpose of the migration was to preserve at least a basic outline of the plot, and not necessarily every little detail in between, details which could affect the ability to market the copyrighted material. Cut down this article's size and remove every nitpick detail if you're not satisfied that it won't pass criteria of GDFL licensing; whatever is done after that in the destination Naruto wiki (expansion and return to overly detailed plots, deletion, etc.) is no longer our concern. Better yet, merge this article with the episode guides (as one has stated earlier), saving only plot overviews. - 60.50.54.92 02:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are already reasonable plot summaries in all the places that would be suitable targets for a merge. A merge is therefore innappropriate as it would only cause over bloating of the target article. Jay32183 03:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A merge doesn't always mean copy and past the information. In this case, it would require that people look over the salient details that might have been missed in existing plot summaries, and moving them there, while keeping the entire thing manageable. This series does not need this much plot summary. Wikipedia is not about plot summaries. Those summaries are merely there to give context to the discussion of real world impact. --Eyrian 04:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest it would be a copy and paste. I said adding more plot details to the potential target articles is a bad idea because there would be too much. Jay32183 04:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I still endorse a migration to a Naruto wiki only if dramatic trimming is made on this article to summarise this whole mess. I'll leave it to others to develop a consensus on the fate of this article's merit in Wikipedia. - Two hundred percent 08:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I probably would have voted Keep a while ago, before the individual season articles were that well developed. I still think there needs to be a central summary (maybe not as detailed as this) of the Naruto plot, since we're kinda moving away from that on character articles... But I understand why this was nominated again. Right now, I think I'm gonna stay neutral, at least until I can collect my thoughts on the matter and express them more coherently. This being said, I'm surprised that a massive influx of anon IPs and new user accounts havent already flooded this AFD... Maybe there's hope yet... -- Ghost Stalker (Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 00:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Ther is no real reason to delete this article. It gives information, and is not destructive. It might be 95% plot summary, however, If the only way to tell the readers of wikipedia about this manga\anime is through a "Plot summary", then so be it. I don't think masshi Kishimoto is losing any sleep over the "Plot summary" anyway.busboy 05:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Why have a article on a plot summary? -- Hirohisat  Freedom of Speech 05:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: We should SPLIT the articles instead. That way, we can still retain the information and keep articles to a minimum size. Mind you, there are various articles on characters of a TV series or a particular episode that are quite long yet they are not being nominated for deletion. -Omghgomg 12:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about length, it's that the article is nothing but plot summary. The article violates WP:NOT by design. If we split the article then we have multiple articles that have nothing but plot summary and we've made things worse. Jay32183 17:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Furthermore, the article has already been split. As for the various single-episode articles for other works, they really shouldn't be there themselves unless something was especially notable about that particular episode. They exist, but that does not mean they are justifiable.  You Can '  t See Me!  06:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. We don't need more bloated plot summaries. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I think we've had enough time to transfer the info to other articles. Sam ov the blue sand 21:31, 27 June 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.