Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red-Haired Shanks

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 List of One Piece characters#Shanks. This is an exceptionally poor discussion full of bad tempered bickering, accusations of canvassing and multiple policy free personal opinions dressed up in votes. Based on weight of argument we probably merge or redirect but with weak sourcing the merge target needs to selectively pull across material. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red-Haired Shanks

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Just to stop the edit warring at this. Tbf, the article still fails WP:GNG. The majority of it is derived from primary and listicles sources, particularly CBR. As per WP: BEFORE, I can't find some reliable source that talks mainly about character, not only as passing mention or theories. According to Earwig's tool, this article also suffers copyright violation. BloatedBun (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Anime and manga. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I already explained myself several times about how this characters fails wp:notability though. There are little to no sources of the character to write a proper reception section. If the character were more outstanding in the narrative like say a Straw Hat it might be possible. I made a quick google search for possible reviews focusing on his appearances but dvd reviews only mention Shanks as a part of the premise. Same with the movie Red.Tintor2 (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of One Piece characters#Shanks and possibly even salt per nom and Tintor2. All the sources here are listicles that just provide two short paragraphs about the character or reviews of the main series that only briefly mention the character. Nothing comes close to significant coverage and a search for refs didn't yield any results. Link20XX (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:GNG and uses the same critical sources as articles like Courier (Akudama Drive) or Swindler (Akudama Drive) such as Fandom Post. However those sources were not removed from those articles. Let’s also make be clear that User:Tintor2 was warned with edit warring with multiple users for repeatedly blanking the page and so now is trying to seek deletion even after they were advised to seek consensus on the Red-Haired Shanks talk page before pursuing such drastic measures. However Tintor2 is not the proposer as I originally thought, this was an error. --Plumber (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Again with other stuff arguments. ComicBook was called by another user not to be reliable in contrast to the articles. Fandompost is reliable since it's Chris Beveridge's neverending reliable usage of reviews but there is little to nothing to write about Shanks. Today I've been checking One Piece character third party sources but only found only worthy information for the leads. Shanks is not that notable when compare with the Straw Hats not due to impact but because there is no such sources when I googled today.Tintor2 (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) While the article does use the same sources as the two aforementioned articles, that doesn't mean they are significant coverage. Looking at the sources in the reception section, the reviews from The Fandom Post (which is a reliable source and I can explain why if requested) only mention the character briefly for their involvement in one specific scene in the series, definitely not significant coverage. The ComicBook articles (which is already scraping the bottom of the barrel as-is) are similar; despite mentioning the character in the title, they provide little commentary on the character and just talk about the plot of the series, which is also not significant coverage. Looking at the Swindler article, they have some sources like this, which are all about the character. I assume the Courier article is the same, but I don't feel like looking over it. While I agree that Tintor2 shouldn't have edit warred for as long as he did, he does have a good point regarding the character's notability. Link20XX (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I am curious to know why you think Fandom Post is a reliable source, and not a dubious source that can be cited situationally or sparingly. Haleth (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Fandom Post's reliability was discussed by WP:ANIME. In short, the website's editor-in-chief and most frequent writer, Chris Beveridge, has been interviewed by Anime News Network (link) and they have even written a few articles about his website and even cited it as a source on occasion, like here and here. Additionally, Beveridge has been a guest of honor at Anime Boston (link). The website's other writers have also written for other reliable sources, as can be seen in the linked discussion. Link20XX (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Plumber: If you have been paying attention at all, Tintor2 has not sought deletion at any juncture of their dispute with you, although they should have known better then to edit war. A merge or redirect is not the same as deletion. The editor who started this AfD is someone else entirely. Haleth (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my mistake. I have corrected the above message and will apologize to @Tintor2: for the error. I’m sorry for my mistake, Tintor2. Plumber (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Plumber, you might also want to retract your allegation in the ANI you filed. Haleth (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Plumber is now sending mass messages on people's talk pages and canvassing [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. BloatedBun (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am hoping for a proper turnout on this issue. Canvassing is fine if done according to NPOV. --Plumber (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mass canvassing specific users is not fine at all, see WP:CANVAS. Link20XX (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Plumber's response to the canvassing warning is cause for concern. Perhaps a report about them to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents would be appropriate. Haleth (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I only notified “Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article” and "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)“ in a neutral manner as "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion." That is completely in line with WP:CANVAS. Plumber (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You even notified Nikkimaria, who is a FAC coordinator. BloatedBun (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also notified you because I did not see your signature here at first and so I didn't know it was you who made this proposal lol Plumber (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of One Piece characters#Shanks. There is a dearth of coverage about the character from reliable and independent secondary sources which are preferably from an out of universe perspective. I have already expressed my opinion about Plumber's mass creations of One Piece characters here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about the One Piece media franchise. A wiki specifically dedicated to all things One Piece, however, is this way. Haleth (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am giving my support to having the page remain per the suggestion of @Plumber: and the fact that the List of One Piece characters page is getting too long. A discussion about this was also started on that page's talk page. I'm just letting you people know that. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keeep. We have a few sentences of reliablish analysis added from [8]. He will have a major role in he upcomin One Piece: Red movie, and there's alraedy some coverage of this and his potential role: [9]. So here I think we have at least two sources (I discarded a bunch of weaker similar ones), that qualify for SIGCOV, if barely. And as usual - there probably is some more coverage in Japanese that nobody can find, or cares to do so, since for whatever reason I am not seeing Japanese-spekers active in anime and manga AfDs these days, sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of One Piece characters#Shanks Not notable enough on its own. Weak coverage to stand on its own. ContentEditman (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as I agree with User:Rtkat3 about WP:SIZE. If this is to be merged then lets have a discussion about how to do it rather than place an AfD merge result at the top of the page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of the content duplicates that found at Fandom. — Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Taynix (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that this page needs to be remain. Since in the manga the Wano arc will end this year, he will probably be appeared more in the manga as author Oda promised on his message last year. Also, his film will aired this year on August. So most likely, many articles will published about him. If this page will be deleted this month, in a few months later, someone will make a page about him in Wikipedia again. So it is better that this page will be remain so other users can improve it until it meets the standard.--Bint Hafiz — Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I want this page need to be remain too. Like what @User:Bint hafiz had said, in few months someone will make page about him again. It is bothersome and we will begin in a scratched again. So it is better this page to be remain so some other users can improve it little by little.Selenne (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notice on the AFD closer that a lot of keeper votes above ignored notability criteria policy, except Piotrus. BloatedBun (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of One Piece characters#Shanks per Link20XX. Rin (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of One Piece characters#Shanks as the current reception does not convince me that it is a character meriting their own article, mostly being trivial/fannish coverage. It seems most of the keep !votes are WP:ILIKEIT. Possibly WP:TOOSOON if he gets coverage after the One Piece movie comes out. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of One Piece characters#Shanks per WP:TOOSOON. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 13:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, per WP:GNG. I recognize this is a borderline case, but the bulk of this comes from a couple questionable sources that are insufficient to meet our guidelines and policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Notability is WP:INHERITED from the series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.