Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saiyan (Dragon Ball)


 * 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   redirect to Dragon Ball. It can be un-redirected when and if reliable secondary sources to support it are found. Shi meru  08:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Saiyan (Dragon Ball)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:NOT as containing an extensive plot summary with not a single third-party source to provide real-world relevance, such as reception, development, and. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Article was previously redirected twice to the main article of the work, Dragon Ball, however, the redirects have been repeatedly reverted. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article was redirected with no consensus, and as such it was reverted. A discussion had taken place about merging Super Saiyan into this article but an overzealous editor decided on their own to redirect both to the Dragon Ball article. The article needs work but that only means it should be improved, not deleted. Keep in mind we are talking about an article that exists in 12 languages and has hundreds of edits. PeRshGo (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * None of this excuses the fact that the article fundamentally fails WP:V along with two whole sections of WP:NOT and is completely non-notable because it has not been covered by a single reliable third-party source. As for there being no consenses for the original redirect, this discussion proves that to be completely false. There was a discussion and a consensus formed to redirect both articles to Dragon Ball. There was no discussion and consensus to restore either article. You did that entirely on your own. —Farix (t &#124; c) 04:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the text. That was in reference to the Super Saiyan article not this one. One person saying they should do it and one agreeing with no further discussion is NOT consensus. Even the issue of merging the Super Saiyan article was still in debate. And keep in mind you're referencing a discussion that never took place on the Saiyan talk page. The merger was completely out of line with proper procedure. And no, I have not stated that this is a perfect article but it needs improvement, not deletion.  PeRshGo (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion was in reference to both articles. Just because the discussion occurred in one place doesn't mean that the consensus to redirect both articles to Dragon Ball invalid. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect restore redirect per the consensus at the merge discussion that occured quite awhile ago at Talk:Super_Saiyan and with Super Saiyan's later merging to Dragon Ball (a redirect PeRshGo has wrongly undone as well); PeRshGo's inappropriate dismissal of the consensus there and the overall clean up of DB articles is deserving of a troutslap. Unnotable fictional concept with no actual significant coverage in any reliable source, and as nom notes, Wikipedia is not a fansite. There is an active Dragon Ball wikia for that sort of extensive, minute OR. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note once again that you are referencing the Super Saiyan page, not the Saiyan (Dragon Ball) page. If I went over to Klingon's talk page and argued that we merge Vulcan (Star Trek) with Star Trek you can be certain it would get reverted. Not even a merger tag was put up. It was just done. PeRshGo (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am referencing both. It was done in an appropriate fashion. Your disagreeing with them and randomly deciding to undo them ages later is your issue. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You aren't at any point referencing both discussions. Here's the discussion on Saiyan (Dragon Ball)'s talk page, Talk:Saiyan_(Dragon_Ball). You'll notice that merging the page with Dragon Ball wasn't agreed to or even mentioned. You just did it, no tag, no anything. PeRshGo (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit summary notes it was done per consensus, so take your bad faith, thinly veiled negative claims elsewhere. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't follow anything close appropriate procedure so I reverted it. If you can show me a merger tag, or even one comment on Talk: Saiyan (Dragon Ball) that would be something. But you can't show either because they never happened. PeRshGo (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Both articles were properly tagged for merger as is clear in the edit histories before being redirected. The discussion occurred properly at Super Saiyan re merging the two articles, and the consensus was to redirect BOTH to Dragon Ball. Discussions do not occur in both places, nor is it supposed to. FYI, one of the participants in that discussion was an admin, so I seriously doubt he wouldn't have said something if procedure had not been done properly, but of course it was. You simply disagreed with the result and came later and undid it all, twice, despite being told it was by consensus, which it was. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, that was the tag for Super Sayian to be merged into Saiyan, not Saiyan to be merged into Dragon Ball. You can defend it all you want but the history doesn't lie. A discussion to redirect the whole page to Dragon Ball should have come with its own tag. And just because an admin was involved somehow doesn't mean they oversaw every step. It was a bad move, and given the article was written primarily by inexperienced editors it went unchallenged. I'm not here pushing some fanboy agenda. I can't even remember my last edit within the realm of anime. And given your constant accusations I can't help but think it's all motivated by WP:JDLI. I just saw a bad redirect while poking around and reverted it. The only plan I have for Saiyan is maybe to develop some of the Indian district articles. PeRshGo (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, once again it was a tag to merge them together. That the decision was to redirect them BOTH to Dragon Ball does not invalidate the consensus at all. It would have had the same participants either way. The move was valid, no matter how much you want to complain, and argue. And if you know nothing about the topic, and couldn't care less, then why would you even be looking at a redirect from last year and poking around in it. Sorry, but someone who isn't pushing a "fanboy" agenda and has no interest in the topic is certainly not going to be inclined to vilify and declare all of the active, experienced editors involved in the discussion, who are all members of the Anime and manga project and actually are well versed in the topic, to have acting wrongly. Unless of course you really have some other motive. Dragon Ball's Saiyan has nothing to do with India, so I don't see what you could possibly plan to "develop". -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just read your own links. You posted a tag to merge Super Saiyan with Saiyan, not Saiyan with Dragon Ball. It's as simple as that. There is no debate. By any normal standard that's grounds for a revert. Maybe you guys play things fast and loose in your WP, I don't know. But to me it seemed pretty clear cut. As for the India articles, keep in mind that after the redirect was posted an editor overwrote it in good faith and began posting information about a village named Saiyan in India. The info was pretty bad, but that's what first grabbed my attention. I looked into the edit history, realized that a pretty shady redirect was done so I restored it as best I could, moved it to Saiyan (Dragon Ball) and made, Saiyan (disambiguation) which referenced the various Indian villages. I had hoped to do a bit more research about the villages, perhaps write an article, and see if maybe one of them may have been the reason for naming the Dragon Ball race Saiyan, but I just never got around to it. And I never said I know nothing about DBZ. I've watched a lot of the show, and own a few of the fighting titles, but I'm far from a fanboy. I don't spend a lot of time in the fiction realm in general on Wikipedia. But if I had to name a wiki pet peeve it would be overzealous and premature deletions. Articles as old as this one, and that exist on so many languages shouldn't just disappear without as much as a proper tag. PeRshGo (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite what you say, there was a very clear and explicit consensus to redirect both articles to to Dragon Ball. Your continued arguments that there was no consensus or that the consensus was invalid is nothing more than WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. You were very wrong to restore the redirect on both occasions. On the English Wikipedia, we try our best to avoid articles on fiction that are based entirely on primary sources and clearly have no coverage by reliable third-party sources. These type of articles that do exits are often created by fans who aren't aware or don't care about Wikipedia's policies on fiction and notability. It was clear in both of your restorations that you were not going to "get the point", which is why I decided to put the article up for deletion with the intentions of recreating a redirect later rather than edit waring over returning it to a redirect. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's alright I get it. I looked around and realized nearly all of the Dragon Ball related articles got steamrolled in one foul swoop. This just happened to be the one little article I noticed. The dozens of low quality Dragon Ball articles that had popped up over the years were decided to be collectively cleaned out. I understand that Wikiprojects often do this sort of thing. Sometimes you just gotta clean house. I don't necessarily believe in the practice, as it really can't be considered good faith, but I can live with it. Just be more honest about it next time. PeRshGo (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It was quite honest and open and over a period of time. So your hints that the redirects, and the cleanup of the DB article series as a whole, was done in bad faith is evident of your own bad faith, as you comment below exemplifies. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. There may be some sources available.  Looking through Google Scholar hits for Saiyan, most of them seem to be unrelated or trivial mentions, but I noticed what looked to be a review in The Lion and the Unicorn of this book, with Google's snippet of the review saying "For example, her adroit and thoughtful reading of the primary text of Dragon Ball Z exposes the testosterone-driven—and borderline white supremacist—behavior of the Saiyan warriors."  I don't think the full text of either the review or the book is available from Google, but if the book actually discusses the Saiyans in detail then it could be a good source.  Searching Google Scholar for the alternate spelling "saiyajin" turns up some hits as well , but they aren't in English so I can't tell if they are useful.  Someone might want to look at those in case any of them are useful sources. Calathan (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect for now. No evidence of meeting any relevant inclusion guideline. Would gladly change my position if enough evidences are found. --KrebMarkt 06:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Add edit protection to my position. It may warrant an article in any future but certainly any editor recreating it with a biased fan minded mentality will result epic failure with Original Research, Point of View pushing & from fans for fans writing style & contents. --KrebMarkt 10:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect for now for me as well. Here's my thing, the article was a submarine resurrection. The project tag and a link in template are missing. Which gives me the impression that the editor brought this article back under the radar in hopes that the page might live. If it wasn't for Sesshomaru finding it and telling me about it and me then reporting it, it might still be up unchanged for untold months if not years. The real world content is there in term of the Toriyama's development of the race, thank to the source books like the Daizenshus and the more recently published books. However, the concept is not embedded into pop culture like Klingon, Vulcan, or Kryptonian due to it's early entry into our lexicon. Plus, we also have to contend with the sad fact that, and I mean no disrespect the editors here or anywhere else on Wikipedia, most editors working on Dragon Ball, if not all foreign pop culture articles, are produced and worked on by fanboys and fangirls who really have no access to the those aforementioned source materials or can even speak or read the language to help make a real dent on such an article as this. And any if all people with any real access and incite on the sources have moved on and are busy with real life. I'd be more incline to wait until more sources for the impact and more translations of the source books appear to attempt another by protocol resurrection. Sarujo (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: In regards to not knowing the source language, there could be inter-wiki coordination with the Japanese Wikipedia to identify and transcribe Japanese-language sources so that they can be used to help develop articles. The ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo can be used to initiate such requests. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't restore the WP stuff because I didn't realize it was missing. This wasn't a labor of love for me. I just did it because by any normal standard it would be a bad move. Someone with little to no consensus and no tags that directly mentioned the redirect, redirected a page that exists in several other languages, has countless edits and from looking at the history has already had 2 pages merged into it. It seems WikiProject Anime and manga takes mergers and redirects as serious as they do Assume good faith. PeRshGo (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect: A lot of what we have is plot summary and in-universe information. Good encyclopedic articles are not made of that material. If secondary sources are found in regards to cultural impact or conception and development, then it could conceivably come back. PeRshGo: I would suggest looking through VIZ Dragon Ball books and guidebooks to see if Toriyama mentions any notes about how he designed Saiyans, what he decided to do, etc. Failing that, go on the ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo and ask Japanese editors if they know any works that talk about Toriyama's development and conception of the Saiyans. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - (Lots of) sources exist. Just imagine all the Japanese language info out there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The listing I saw simply has reviews of video games with "Saiyan" in their name. Saiyan is a common term in the DBZ lingo. However this doesn't prove that an abundance of information about the creation and conception of the Saiyan race or the public reaction to the design and implementation of the Saiyan race exists. Either one or both of these elements are needed to write a standalone article. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just noticed someone at Dragon Ball's talk mention that there isn't even a Dragon Ball Z article. I think I better understand the gravity of the situation now. PeRshGo (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Before you go making any more messes, look at the talk archive. Dragon Ball Z was merged to Dragon Ball by overwhelming consensus and WP:MOSAM because they are *gasp* the same series! That they added an extra name on the anime release does not negate that. That consensus has been consistentlyexpand upheld in nearly annual revisiting of the discussion. Not that I bet you'll care, as you seem determine to just stir up hornet's nests and run around fancrufting the DB articles despite your continued claims that you aren't a "fan". -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah It's cool. You actually bothered to mention it on the talk page this time. Good job. And anyways I'll be too busy trying to merge Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation by calling all who oppose the merger trekies and fanboys. PeRshGo (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, it's perfectly valid to consider treating a manga series and an anime series as separate productions, because they are. In some cases it would be appropriate to include them in the same article, for example if both topics were simple, and there was little difference between them and their reception/  In this case, you have a manga series which has spawned multiple notable productions in various media, and varied reception internationally.  It is not appropriate that all offshoots be in one article.  While all the books in Rowling's series happen within the Harry Potter universe, each has its own article.  While Rowling is arguably much more notable, the difference is not that Dragon Ball is not notable, it's merely a matter of scale.  - BalthCat (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting note: Interesting point of reference. I guess wasn't completely off on my I just don't like it accusation. But I'm just calling BS at this point. It really has no purpose. I'm not going to try and fight a whole WikiProject that has decided that the series isn't worth the article space. PeRshGo (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please take your bad faith and personal attacks somewhere else if you can not make any more productive contributes to this discussion. AnmaFinotera, I and the others have given policy base reasons why this article should not exists. You have presented nothing but allusions of bad faith. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I started with complete civility but given I was immediately attacked with accusations of bad faith and personal attacks when only trying to describe how this page was improperly redirected I could no longer ignore the blatant bad faith seen throughout the entire subject. A spin off with 9 seasons is considered non-notable. Seriously? Accuse me of whatever you like but when crap like that is being pulled at the same time it seems silly to ignore it. But as I said I'm not going to try and fight a whole WikiProject that has decided that the series isn't worth the article space. Rather than improve the articles you just delete them because you don't care to improve them yourself. Whatever. It's your WP, do whatever you want. But don't play make believe with me. PeRshGo (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Civility is not reverting an editor's undoing of your bad actions and saying "Thanks for your opinion". You are the one who made it abundantly clear that you didn't care what the consensus was and are arguing just to argue. Dragon Ball Z is not a "spin off", it is simply the English name for the latter half of the manga and its anime adaptation, the former of which was released as just Dragon Ball in Japan. It is not significant different from the first half of the series, it is a continuation of the same story. Nor did anyone say it was "non-notable" rather than it is the same topic already covered in Dragon Ball that does not need a redundant second article. The WikiProject works hard to improve anime/manga articles, which doesn't mean catering to fans who are bound and determined to pretend they are not the same series and who want to have pages upon pages of WP:OR and plot summary. Whether you agree with the project member's consensus that the topic of DB is best served with one article about the series rather than two redundant articles is your own issue. Thanks, at least, for making it very clear that despite your protests above, you really are just another fan wanting to revert the articles back to a fansite-like state instead of an encyclopedic article. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've explained that I feel your actions preceding the "merger" were inadequate on many levels. It seems that defending weak actions are appropriate, and defending a weak article is rampant fandom. PeRshGo (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, things are getting even shadier now with posts being deleted. Whatever, do what you want with it. I don't want any part of this mess. PeRshGo (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your post was a violation of policy, hence the inappropriate content being removed. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of valid information to fill the article, which wouldn't fit well anywhere else. Notable races in comic books, and other fictional series have their own races.  It helps to understand the series better.  It is the race that the main character is, as well as a fair number of other characters that appear throughout the series, and there even an entire movie about them(something, Father of Goku, it was called).    D r e a m Focus  06:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between this and other races. Other fictional races have well-sourced information about creation and conception and reaction from critics. This one doesn't. We cannot have a separate page without what I mentioned. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect and suggest indefinite full protection as this is an ongoing revert attempts and content dispute with multiple editors, including both IP and non-IP and will likely only continue if it is not protected from such reversions in the future. The attempts at reverting have never shown any attempt to follow policies or guidelines like WP:NOTPLOT, WP:GNG, WP:OR and others as far as I can tell. 陣 内 Jinnai 06:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problems with that happening yet. Where in the history  do you see any problems with any edit warring?  Hopefully all of those editing with IP addresses will take the time to comment here.  The opinions of those editing the article, and who actually watch the series, I think should always be sought after.   D r e a m Focus  11:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge and Redirect to Dragonball Z - fails WP:PLOT - excessive coverage of fictional content is to be discouraged. There's no real-world notability of this, and no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Claritas § 18:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean Dragon Ball? 陣 内 Jinnai 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They probably assumed like most people would that a Dragon Ball Z article exists. PeRshGo (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A DBZ article actually existed, but it was merged into the Dragon Ball article a few years ago and I helped organized the cleanup of these articles at that time, along with some help from other users. You can find the information about DBZ here now that it was merged to that article. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Redirect to Dragon Ball - fails WP:NOT and resembles a fansite without any reliable sources to cover this article. The Dragon Ball Z, Dragon Ball GT and Dragon Ball anime articles have all been redirected to the Dragon Ball article, as well as the Super Saiyan article. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Create new Dragon Ball fork: I don't think it is appropriate to merge all Dragon Ball articles into one. While it is not sensible to say it compares to Star Trek, it is unquestionably a notable franchise.  (I for one have never seen a full episode of Dragon Ball and I know the word Saiyan and Super Saiyan.  I don't really know what they mean, but it's a part of my 'pop culture exposure')  There are four animated series, multiple animated movies, at least one live action film, video games, as well as manga series' and other productions.  If the notable details of all these works are included in one article, it would become large and unwieldy, there must be forks.  For comparison, I looked into Mudblood and Zord.  The former redirects to Harry Potter universe and the latter exists.  I think the former is the sensible solution here.  Create an article such as Dragon Ball setting or Dragon Ball universe and use this as the merge destination for setting topics. - BalthCat (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was arguing for this article primarly because I thought it was a shady redirect on an old and internationally recognized article, but when I realized that even Dragon Ball Z didn't have it's own article the problem seemed to be a bit larger. I think BalthCat brings up a good point. PeRshGo (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply Which is Wikipedia refuses to give in to the fan minded editors. You want a separate article for a fictional element, universe, character, etc... Earn it. Prove that the spin-out is warranted with enough evidences of notability and not weak arguments like article size, i like it, its deserve it and the like. I am tired of false promises and short minded editors who think that their preferred fictional series is better covered by Wikipedia with more articles which would only result to ridicule and brand the set of article as Fandom Tantrum Premium Product --KrebMarkt 06:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. Earn it?  Article size is specifically mentioned at the top of the edit box when you edit a large article.  Is this not, and has this not always been, because beyond a certain size, forking is encouraged?  Has something changed?  Otherwise, what would be the point of creating forks at all?  They contain a certain amount of redundant information, which requires redundant sourcing.  While PeRshGo could possibly be fan-minded, I am not;  I hated Dragon Ball Z, and I don't appreciate you attacking him in his response to me.  - BalthCat (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The WP:LENGTH argument isn't applicable in the Dragon Ball case as it's just 28 KBs of readable proses. If you like some reading here the last DBZ split discussion. Dragon Ball is very symbolic on how much we can screw up with excessive spin-out with a fictional franchise. It went as far as creating one article per Dragon Ball related music singles and albums released (around 40 articles), an article for Dragon Ball video games music composer, an article for Dragon Ball Kai anime series opening theme performer. --KrebMarkt 14:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But isn't "combining" everything to the Dragon Ball article overkill? And I would note that Dragon Ball is only so short because the mergers done were mergers in name only. Little to no information is ever copied into the article despite some of it being well sourced. PeRshGo (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All appropriate and reliably sourced content was merged. Please stop the incorrect accusations. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Once all of the repetitive information was removed, there wasn't much left other than critical reception and information about the series broadcast. It was because there was so much repetitive information and not enough unique information that the two articles were merged. In fact, that is why most manga articles with anime adaptations, or visa versa, are always combined. But this is entirely off-topic and has nothing to do with this article, Saiyan (Dragon Ball). So all of these accusations that something "nefarious" happened with the Dragon Ball articles in order to keep this article are just a red herring. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect not significant coverage for an article... Arskwad (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong redirect per nom, Sjones23, et al. --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Remark: The AfD has sparked a new discussion about splitting DBZ Talk:Dragon_Ball. All interested editors are invited to join in (again). --KrebMarkt 15:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Discussion" started by another User:PWeeHurman sock and should just be removed per usual procedures for dealing with banned people. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The case is still ongoing and was started by YOU. I have to say WikiProject Anime and manga has to be the most shady WikiProject on this website. And this is from someone who does most his edits in the realm of secret societies. PeRshGo (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, look at his history and the 30 variants of that name he's used - nothing shady about it, pretty much a guarantee. Just doing CU to get any sleepers since he, like most sockers, like to make more than one at once. Have asked an admin to deal with blocking him. And my noting, and properly reporting, him as a known sockpuppetter has nothing to do with anything. Your continued attacks on the Anime and Manga project and claims of "shady" activity are grossly uncivil and beyond bad faith. You disparaging anyone who has pointed out repeatedly that you were wrong in your claims is also uncivil and disruptive. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it high time that an WP:ANI report be filed on PeRshGo as he or she is clearly doing nothing more than being disruptive this AfD by repeatedly attack other editors for unrelated issues instead of discussing the article up for deletion. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I will post it up at WP:ANI as soon as possible. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This might be more convincing to bystanders if you all maintained the appearance of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Since you haven't, it really looks like you are on a crusade. - BalthCat (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See the entire ANI for the issues, and the fact is that PeRshGo himself has stated he went to far in his accusations at this AfD and his continued personal attacks against specific editors and an entire WikiProject. He also was sternly warned in the AfD (and encouraged to come strike his comments - though he has declined to do so). So now that he has proclaimed that he is dropping it, are you picking up his banner to make the same inappropriate remarks? There is no "crusade" going on, just several editors validly annoyed as PeRshGo's actions and his having stirred up controversy and made bad-faith accusations without cause. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I observed immediate hostility towards him, and I am pointing out what that hostility seems to imply. I have no loyalties to him, or to Dragon Ball, I do however, have a peeve with people invoking CIVIL and AGF in the same breath as they break them. - BalthCat (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect per above, No real world notability to be found here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect for now for lack of established notability and for being mostly unsourced plot. If parts can be merged elsewhere (i.e. by slightly restructuring the List of characters), go ahead. – sgeureka t•c 07:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have not read the entire logorrhea that comprises this AfD. Nor am I interested in what compromises or deals may've been worked out under duress by some editors - they have no authority to bind the rest of us. Nor, for that matter, am I interested in what issues some editors may have with the content, because this is a discussion of notability.
 * What I do know is that the Dragon Ball franchise is one of the most popular ever (lamentably) in both Japan and America and that Saiyans are one of the most important & common plot elements, that hits in both [ http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=dragon+ball+saiyan Google Books] or my CSE are so absurdly numerous that it's hard to see hits like The supervillain book: the evil side of comics and Hollywood buried in all the official DB material and all the other stuff. I don't need to go through all the LexisNexis hits to know that this is an obvious keep. --Gwern (contribs) 19:53 22 June 2010 (GMT)


 * Gwern, you do have to dig through LexisNexis. See, while a fictional universe is a notable topic, terms within the fictional universe do not get their own articles unless the terms themselves are discussed in detail in secondary sources. If you want this article saved, go through the books and add the secondary material. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which would be why I suggested Dragon Ball universe. - BalthCat (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ultra Strong Delete Destroy this article. It violates the almighty WP:N, as well as numerous other policies and guidelines that've been widely accepted as consensus by roughly three dozen people. ALSO use this AfD as a precedent to delete every fiction-related article that isn't directly about the series itself or a character or episode list of accepted legitimacy. This includes all "_____ universe" articles that explain a setting and any topics regarding fictional terms, races, abilities and etc. Kill. It. All. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia for real world subjects and we, as Wikipedians, have a responsibility to purge this garbage from all publicly available online venues for the benefit of our readers. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * am I correct in assuming this opinion is meant as satire? If not, I'll try to explain why I thought it was.   DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect per above. This article is a terrible in-universe fancruft extravaganza.    Snotty Wong   gossip 04:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect Per above and per lack of independent sources with significant coverage. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: To the editors who want this kept: Look at Articles for deletion/Cranbury School - Back when "Cranbury School" was on AFD, I didn't just argue on why to keep it. I went out and tried to build the article and source as much as I could. Alansohn and I not only built up the article - we found proof that it needed to be kept. Please learn from this example. If "Saiyan" is salvable, then go on LexisNexis, go on Questia, read the Dragon Ball guidebooks, build up the article, and prove it. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact is though some editors are lazy and/or have limited time on wikipedia (Work, College, ect..) and cant be here to find the sources in depth. As for the guide books, most likely fans of the series would have them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fans of the series who want the article kept can consult their guidebooks. If someone doesn't have a book but knows a Wikipedian who has a book, they can ask the Wikipedian to look up the book to see if there is content about the development of Saiyans. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind, though, that if the only coverage is in fanbooks, and there is no actual third-party coverage, it still is not notable. It must have third-party coverage as a subject, not just mentioning in the context of the series. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For reception information or additional creation information in third party sources, things in LexisNexis, EBSCOHost, etc. would help with that. Also he could contact the Chatsubo and ask for the Japanese to look for reviews that discuss reactions to the way the Saiyan race was established in the Dragon Ball universe.
 * Even if he only finds primary source creation info from guidebooks, it means that the "Saiyan" section of a "Dragon Ball universe" would be of a decent size with lots of interesting information.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A Dragon Ball universe article would also only be appropriate with third-party coverage. "interesting information" that is only from primary sources is not a basis for creating any article. If the only coverage of the race is in the guidebooks, those interested in learning such information should simply buy the guideline. Wikipedia does not exist purely to mirror a primary source, after all. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A person trying to create an article about the Dragon Ball universe as a whole will certainly find secondary sources that describe reception to the way the universe was constructed, securing the article's existence as a standalone article. However not every element individually documented in such an article will necessarily have secondary information. Some portions of the article may use entirely primary source information. In order for the "Saiyan" concept to get its own standalone article, there have to be secondary sources that discuss specifically the race as a concept. Yes, I understand that Wikipedia is not there to mirror a particular primary source 100%. However we can take what is deemed encyclopedic or worthy of including from that primary source, and combine it with the encyclopedic material from other primary sources to build significant sections of articles about fictional universes. For instance with the Death Note articles How to Read 13 (along with the Malaysian The Star newspaper articles and some other supplementary materials) was incredibly helpful in building up sections of Death Note articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2010 (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.