Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Naruto: Shippūden

Plot of Naruto: Shippūden

Plot of Naruto: Shippūden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is a grotesque violation of the subject's copyright. It is a 32 kb+ step-by-step summary of a film series, and I do not know how to even begin to reduce this to something reasonable.^{but please this does not mean a collaboration wouldnt dont overstate} I think the best thing to do is wipe it and start over. WP:FICT does not like this article. Nor do WP:WAF or WP:NOT. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Two things: this isn't a film, this is describing half the storyline of the series Naruto; and since when were plot summaries a copyright violation? (I could understand if it were word-for-word transcripts of every episode and/or chapter, but even with this article's size, it certainly is not.) NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Extensive plot summaries without contect provided by external sources are a violation. See: WP:FICT and WP:WAF --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not certain why you thought this was a summary of a film series, but if it were, it is understandable how you would consider this article overwrought. However the source material itself is extensive and serialized over several months and this article does not provide a

substitute for reading the manga. DaoKaioshin 14:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment Also note that it survived a previous AfD over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Naruto I, back when the article was titled Plot of Naruto II. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it's used to keep "Plot of Naruto" at a reasonable size, and the content is definitely encyclopedic in terms of the show. It could use trimming. JuJube 09:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please explain your use of the word "encyclopedic" in that sentence. This just looks like a depressingly meticulous moment-by-moment plot summary with little context. That's not encyclopedic; it's a fan page. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Chris is right; this is a clear violation of Wikipedia policies and fair use criteria. No article should consist solely of plot summary, that much is clear from WP:FICT, WP:WAF, and WP:NOT. — Brian (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "Wait a minute. There are lots of articles like this on Wikipedia. Episode summaries, book summaries, even movie summaries. How is this article different from them?" Master Endar 08:07, 26 March 2007 (Centeral)
    • Comment - It might help if you consider this the first of a series of such AFD discussions. Please provide examples of similar articles so I know what to tag next. Thanks in advance. Also, please fix your signature. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but trim and provide with sources (which are definitely out there). There's no disputing the notability of the Naruto series. None whatsoever. This article is a page split from Plot of Naruto for the purpose of size, and Plot of Naruto was originally created to keep the main Naruto page size reasonable. So it fits notability criteria, but needs sourcing. I had it tagged at one point, but it seems that the tag had been removed. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No one is disputing the the series' notability. What's being disputed is the extensive nature of these summaries without trying to put it into any sort of reasonable real-world context or cite external sources.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't see why this was nominated. Maybe its length demands a cleanup tag, but this summary is in line with countless examples that are presumably considered valid applications of fair use according to wikipolicy. DaoKaioshin 14:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you are going to make a claim like that, please include some examples of similar articles that have been said to meet policy with regard to fair use. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This came up last year with regard to one of the other Naruto plot articles -- see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Plot_of_Naruto_I. Personally, I'm conflicted. (1) We don't normally delete articles that could be cleaned up; (2) I'm torn about just how much plot summary is appropriate for serial works. According to the notes, this article currently covers approximately one hundred serial chapters of the work -- how much plot summary is appropriate for 100 issues of the manga? (3) Ultimately, if the article had more out-of-universe info, I would probably be ok with about this level of plot summary, maybe a little less. Given that it doesn't, I'm torn about whether to delete the article to encourage editors to do a better job next time or to leave it in the hope that the editors eventually clean it up. TheronJ 14:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • TheronJ, I know you have worked on WikiProject Comics articles before, so I ask you to think about how many of those articles are merely plot summaries that cover 100 issues of a series in such detail. 52 (comic book) will cover 52 issues when it is finished, but the summary is maintained s at about ten paragraphs, and it has a lot of external sources that discuss the real-world details surrounding the series. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, Chris. There's no question, IMHO, that the comics project has led the way on this problem, and articles like Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs) and Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) are much, much better that the Naruto plot articles - both because they make a concerted effort to include helpful, non-plot information and a concerted effort to keep the plot information limited. I'm mostly torn about whether deletion is appropriate for an article like this, which I agree (1) needs clean-up badly; (2) probably won't be cleaned up for years if ever; and (3) is very likely to constitute a copyright violation because of the depth of plot summary relative to non-plot information. I'll think about it and see if I can come off the fence. TheronJ 14:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Fan comments aside, I stand with my previous nom. of Plot of Naruto I. WP:NOT: "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." --Pentasyllabic 15:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This is in no way a "grotesque violation of the subject's copyright" or a "clear violation of Wikipedia policies and fair use criteria." It fits perfectly with "a plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." It takes a bit of plot summary to describe 400 magazines and 250 television episodes. It has to be broken down a bit, and that's what this is, see WP:SS. If you just glance at the page it looks like it's only covering a few episodes, but it's actually covering over 100 issues of the manga. I can see why someone thought it was too large when they thought it was a single film. You also may want to know this is the 43rd most viewed article on all of wikipedia. It's going to get a little bloated when 16,000 people are reading it every day. Naruto related articles account for 8 of our top 100 pages, with about 100,000 page views a day, so they tend to get big. People aren't saying delete because of notability, but just in case someone's thinking it, Naruto gets 32,000,000 google hits. - Peregrine Fisher 16:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a plot of of a "larger topic", the franchise is large and thus there's a lot to cover, As Wikipedia is not paper and I believe this fits in with our goals to create an encyclopaedia. I'd recommend somebody add some sources, however. Matthew 16:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "I do not know how to even begin to reduce this to something reasonable."^{but please this does not mean a collaboration wouldnt dont overstate}- The out of universe details are at Naruto, although I don't know if that matters here. Can anyone comment on wikibooks? It's mentioned in WP:FICT, although from reading about it, I can't really tell if it is an acceptable location for plot summaries. (Jez, I need to stop thinking about this and just hit save, I've run up against the last two comments. and an edit! =P ) --Celain 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep-Important pageIllyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - While I agree that this page is way too large and goes into way too much detail, it can be cleaned up with a whole lot of work. The only real area that has considerable bloat is the area covering the Hidan and Kazuku arc. That arc just ended a couple of weeks back, so we can now take a knife to the section with the advantage of knowing exactly what was important to the storyline. However, I'm not really sure how we can source this besides citing the entire manga? --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya!) 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as it consist of nothing but a plot summary (see WP:FICT). -- Whpq 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I guess the reason we are complaining is not so much of the plot-for-plot deletion, but it seems that Stargate (both Atlantis and SG-1) and Startrek gets to keep every single episode plot summary, while an anime that is notable even in America cannot (and I am not even going with other anime series that is not licensed yet) George Leung 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Naruto also has an article for each episode: see List of Naruto episodes/List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes. There is also List of Naruto story arcs for shorter synopses. --Pentasyllabic 22:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment - Of the nerd topics, I find that Star Trek is done reasonably well - far better handled than Star Wars or Transformers, but that's not difficult - as long as there is a proportional amount of out-of-universe details, the article is fine. If you can suggest problematic articles, I would be happy to look at them. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reason to delete this article and start over, but if you do, perhaps you should try the talk page. Deleting the content merely to recreate it though, wouldn't make for less trouble, but more. Mister.Manticore 23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I believe this has been duscussed before and I don't see a reason to remove it. Simply leave it as it is and continue expanding it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.66.22.232 (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep Why bother deleting it? What is the point in deleting an article just because you have no interest in it? It's highly informative for people who are unable to get the mangas, and is therefore serving it's purpose as an encyclopedic article.
• Weak delete No one wants to trim it down, so a wipe should do the trick. The problem is that people seem to think every chapter has to be analyzed in total detail here, but there are other places to get that kind of extensive information. The above-noted Wikipolicies are rather clear that this article needs to be remedied, and has been for half a year now. Treima 01:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - if it is possible to fix an article, it should not be deleted. This article is clearly fixable. - Peregrine Fisher 01:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - And yet it hasn't been since the last debate. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• There's no deadline on wikipedia that I'm aware of. - Peregrine Fisher 02:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, as it is an aspect of the larger subject of Naruto as a whole and thus not subject to exclusion by WP:NOT#IINFO 7 alone. Plot summary was deemed important to the subject, and forked from the main article, then from the Part I article in a natural Wiki process to keep pages readable and concise. That said, it could certainly use some improvement. It shouldn't be written from such a percise perspective, but rather a general one, focusing on what's important. More importantly, it needs to be well referenced to the source material so people researching the subject can trace their path back to the particular episode or chapter they're interested in. –Gunslinger47 03:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. Contributors to this article fail dearly to make any effort at trimming it down once in a while, but it is much easier to manage than what is at the moment 225 potentially more detailed synopsizes of the same crap. I won't pretend that plot summaries such as this are necessary on Wikipedia, but for Wikipedia to frown on this while seemingly turning a blind eye to larger scale examples is some kind of discrimination. You can give me some line about how single episode summaries have some greater importance than an article with multiple episode summaries crammed together, but the only real difference is that one has cultural references/trivia, and the other doesn't. Also, something of a similar nature that I'd be interested to see if it's anymore acceptable: Category:Dragon Ball sagas. ~SnapperTo 03:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Detailed plot summaries are unfortunately the least of Wikipedia's legal worries so I hope this AfD will be a wake-up call to all contributors to pay attention to the {{plot}} tag. UnfriendlyFire 03:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Split. I and several other users are working on breaking the Plot of Naruto I & II articles into summaries by arc. You Can't See Me! 04:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see any good reason in deleting this, it's good for those that can't get online manga. It could be improved,yes, but DELETED? That's REALLY not needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shonen Jump Master (talk • contribs) 12:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep- As has been previously stated, this article provides a valuable source for those who can't read japanese, and can't wait several months for a single chapter to be subbed. As well, there can be difficulties finding said chapters, let alone actually accessing them. The article could, in theory be shortened, but it would, and should be a group effort.--Megaman3 12:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- I'm not sure, and this may be my bad memory kicking in, but I also believe this was discussed before and a Keep consensus was made. Also, this is a useful source for people who truly would like to find the information, as with anything else on Wikipedia. As such, why delete something that a good number of people find useful? There's no point, in my opinion. Steelesaber 20:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment, regarding the last three Keep votes: Your reasons for keeping the article are actually reasons to delete as per current policy. No article can serve as substitute for reading the source material. There are good reasons to keep, but this isn't one of them. –Gunslinger47 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And an AfD discussion is not a vote either. Mister.Manticore 02:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I agree that this article needs trimming down once more (I may do it myself when I find the time), but I see no reason that this article should be removed considering the many, many other plot synopsises for TV series/movies/books/etc. that exist on Wikipedia, nor do I see any copyright violations. It is not step by step as it omits many details, but it does act as a guide on how the story has progressed. Also keep in mind that adding this article to the main Naruto plot article would easily double or even triple it's size. Djseifer 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I think each arc should be given a separate page. Ghos7king 24:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - That might be a bit much, I think. I'll try and go over the article tonight and see if I can excise any unneeded info. Djseifer 00:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Without this article, Plot of Naruto would be way too long. And the article can be split or trimmed or something. There isn't really a reason to delete it. Raven23 02:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a plot summary written by watching the series and deriving conclusions from it, and it doesn't attribute any of the claims. The only useful thing that this could do (other than amuse Naruto fans, which isn't really a goal of this project) is summarize each episode and attribute fictional events on an episode-by-episode basis, and it doesn't even do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  That makes it sound like it should be fixed instead of deleted. - Peregrine Fisher 04:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  This could be a proper encyclopedia article. If the plot summary were reduced by 80%, the article were renamed Naruto: Shippūden, and the article talked at least as much - if not more - about the conception, creation, and critical and popular response to Shippuden in both Japanese- and English-speaking territories, this could work. It'd be a good companion piece to the main Naruto article, and Shippuden is a fairly significant departure in both mood and style, so it wouldn't be out of place to treat it as though it were a separate series.

  I don't think 32K of plot summary (if you can even call it summary) would be a good start on that, nor would it be a useful subpage for that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment So what, are you just all for deleting the article because you don't watch Naruto? I've said it once, and I'll say it again: it is serving it's purpose as an encyclopedic article by providing information. In fact, the article is even titled "Plot of Naruto: Shippuden". Not "Summary of Plot of Naruto: Shippuden." The only "reason" I see for it's deletion is that some people are against Naruto, and just want to mess with Naruto's fans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.215.11.249 (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

  Fanpages provide information. Road signs provide information. Encyclopedias provide introduction and summary, things that this page fails to do.

  If you would like to be provided with the plot of Shippuden, you're in luck! JUMP Comics or VIZ Media (depending on where you live and what language you can read) would like to sell you some comics. Here, we need to be summarizing it (emphasis on the summary) so that we can discuss Shippuden as an artefact of the real world. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and split. This article, while indeed in need of serious editing, is still necessary, as Plot of Naruto would become even more enormous. Furthermore, I cannot see why pages that can be clearly fixed are being slated for deletion. I support this initiative by Snapper in any case. Sephiroth BCR 05:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Naruto is a long series, thus wouldn't it make sense, for the sake of a complete summary, that the summary itself would be long as well? Splitting it according to the arcs is one thing, but this article definetly shouldn't be deleted (somebody already tried, unsuccesfully). Viewtiful Rekk 12:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The page is obviously long and detailed enough to provide an alternative to reading/viewing the source material, and thus constitutes copyright violation. The Hidan and Kakazu section is particularly egregious in this. It's also a completely pointless page, as if it were shortened to a decent level (as has been done with longer series) then it would fit in a main Naruto: Shippūden article. That's the sort of article we need, not something that goes against numerous Wikipedia policies like this one. Stylish Alastor the Stylish 19:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and reduce. While it's true that articles should not just be plot summaries, the existence of one adds to the meaning of the subject matter. Therefore, this article should not be thought of it's own article but part of the Naruto article. In response to claims that the article is too long, I fully agree, though, with the second-to-most-recent arc concluded, it is now possible to clean up that area, which is by far the largest.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 19:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. i have found this a useful tool to write my fan comic about naruto,to keep up with it so i dont make huge mistakes,it also provides us who dont have access to the original form of the manga to keep up with the story since the dub and the us manga are very slow —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blaze of merc (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

• Keep and split into seperate arcs I agree it is too large and is in desperate need of splitting into sperate articles maybe an article for each arc? But I've seen plenty of other articles with plot summeries and some with every minute details (please see The Hills Have Eyes (2006 film) article for example) so if this article is deleted I will assume you will go after the other articles also?Sam ov the blue sand 01:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Yeah splitting between the arcs would also be good (much easer to navigate) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blaze of merc (talk • contribs) 03:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

• CommentThere IS too much content in this article, if there is only 300 espisodes now, what will this page look like when there is 400 or 500? Obviously, the article needs a trim, but there seems to be no one who is willing to do it, probably because of its size. Why don't we create a particular board of users who trim the article monthly? I think that splitting the article will create too much of a fuss, some arcs are just not long enough, its not worth an entire page. Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 13:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not every single arc would need its own article. The Prelude and the Exposition, for instance, can stay in the article due to their brevity. Everything else has sufficient content to have its own seperate article. Sephiroth BCR 17:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - People are complaining about the level of detail, but let's compare it to some other page on wikipedia. First, there's about 2 issues of the manga for every 1 episode. This page is covering 100 issues of the manga, so that's about 50 episodes. This page has about 11,000 words, so that's 220 words per episode. Now a Featured Article episode from House, Pilot (House), has about 600 words in its plot summary. Those episodes are twice as long, so it has about 300 words per 22 minutes, which is 136% more than this page. That's a Featured Article, so people who know what they're doing have cut that synopsis down the best it can be done. If you compare it to some Stargate or Heroes episodes, it's even smaller per minute. The more I think about it, this isn't even too detailed, it's just that being on all on one page makes people think it should be deleted. - Peregrine Fisher 18:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  It's the excessive level of detail coupled with the complete lack of possibility for sourced, encyclopedic content that's the problem. Plus, those lists are equally problematic, for much the same reasons. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep/Spilt i think this article may be two long and much controversy because of its usefulness to many users but i think recoomending it for deletion is a rash descision... A wikiproject may be in order to help fix this article. Spilting in to seprate parts can help as well. On another hand i think a good idea would be to trim the Sections to less detail after the episode pertaining to that section is released which can greatly shorten the article over time. Reccomding this for deletion isnt something to take lightly because its two long copyright violation doesnt seem like a pertaining issue as it just records without posting content. if you posted the manga here i assume it would be a different story Matthew2c4u 20:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)