Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece terms

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 Keep. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

One Piece terms

One Piece terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

As per the sentence that describes the article: This is a list of locations, characters, items, and other terms from the anime/manga series One Piece. As I read through alot of the article, it appears to be just a dumping ground for anything One Piece related. A form of listcruft/fancruft in my opinion. Also: it should be noted, there is character and location (as well as plenty of other One Piece lists) on Wikipedia already. This list seems to be just repeating alot of information, that's listed elsewhere. RobJ1981 08:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Hmm... There are no characters here. No locations as such (maybe one or two noted). There are a lot of articles linked to this page. As for repeating info... Well I can ensure you a LOT of this is here as back up for those articles linked to here and in MOST cases the info is only here. It is here to save the other articles being clogged up with a TON of info that is little relevent to the article. Maybe it is list/fancruft but it is not a dumping ground. Angel Emfrbl 09:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Also, some of these would end up as stub articles... I'd rather see them all collected onto one page rather then a dozen in-universe stub articles which people hate even more. Angel Emfrbl 07:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - As a llst, it doesn't very well defien the contents, and essentially turning it into a dumping ground for anything somebody wants to write about the anime / managa -- Whpq 13:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reply - Perhaps then it just needs som serious wikifying and rewriting rather then deletation to make it work better? Angel Emfrbl 12:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Note the existence of Category:Glossaries, which has been under debate. –Pomte 15:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep: No VALID reason for deletion was actualy given, what the entire nomination boils down to is: "This looks like fancruft, and dispite the fact that that is not a reason for deletion, I don't like it, so let's delete it." (Justyn 01:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC))

• Keep: This article isn't perfect, but it's a good start for something that could be edited into something better. It did help with a lot of the questions I had.--NukeMTV 03:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:NOT#PAPER, WP:LIST. Meets notability guidelines. Matthew 21:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - this is a part of a larger topic. It wont fit on other pages. Extremely notable series. It doesn't seem to duplicatE much, which wouldn't be a reason for deletion anyways. See WP:SS, WP:NOT#PAPER. It's probably the result of some the items receiving a result of merge on their own AfDs. It it isn't, it soon will be if this is deleted. - Peregrine Fisher 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:FICT point 2, according to which: Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters" ... -- Black Falcon 22:55, 1 April 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.