Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Post-Enies Lobby arc

I quote :

Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction 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.

This seems like an aspect of a larger topic to me. Afterall, these are breakaway pages of breakaway pages of breakaway pages. The page the information was originaly all on, the page that if all One Piece pages were to be put on one page it would be this page, "One Piece".

In addition to this; I must note that you prodded these pages, then just under three hours later, you nominated them for AFD. The template says five days, not three hours.

In conclusion; this debate MUST BE CLOSED because it is not only baseless, but was incorectly opened, within hours of the prodding, not giving any time to do what the prod is set up for. This is, plain and simple, an abuse and mockery of the deletion process. (Justyn 11:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC))


 * You conveniently missed the first part of the WP:NOT statement. None of these articles are brief nor do they contain real world context and sourced analysis. Instead, they are solely a summary of One Piece's plot with one or two articles containing a good deal of original research. I also remind you to WP:AGF. I am treating the articles as a group since they are closely related, and had the same problems. So when the prod for one was disputed, I sent the whole lot to AfD. --Farix (Talk) 12:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I did not miss it I was simply bringing up the final part of that because you left it out. I assume good faith, but the fact that you prodded articles, and then nominated them for deletion in such a short period of time, a period of time that should have been much longer, that is for fact finding to get the information required, taking five days of time from us, makes that obscenely difficult.


 * I'm simply saying that I want our five days back; you can put the page up for deletion, but give us the five days that the template called for. (Justyn 20:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC))


 * Prods and AFDs are the same length. In both cases, they get deleted after five days. Prods are used if is reasoned that the article's deletion would go uncontested. AFD is for contested deletions. So how was in inappropriate for me to move them to AFD after some of the prods where contested? --Farix (Talk) 21:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I must have read something wrong, I was under the assumption that the process was "prod page, if nothing, go to AFD". I had misunderstood that the process actualy is "Prod page, if contested, go to AFD", I apologize for this misunderstanding. (Justyn 22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC))