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.
SpartazHumbug!04:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)reply
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.
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
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
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'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
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
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 here08:50, 2 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
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
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.
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.
SpartazHumbug!04:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)reply
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.
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
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
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'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
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
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 here08:50, 2 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
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
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.