Deletion of List of Dragon Ball special abilities

Comment: First and foremost, very little of this is |verified or verifiable, particularly the list. All of it is sourced to direct observation of the show itself, and Wikipedia isn't here to provide watchers' guides for longrunning anime series.Additionally, it's indiscriminate. The word "indiscriminate" gets thrown around a lot, but what it means is that Wikipedia summarizes subjects, instead of listing every single exhaustive detail. It would be perfectly reasonable to mention that attacks are frequently named in the articles on the various DB anime and manga, and it would be perfectly reasonable to name some of the most prominent attacks, even describing them as the signature attacks of certain characters. This is discriminate. Indiscriminate is a list so exhaustive that it lists List of Dragon Ball special abilities#Gekiretsu Kōdan|Gekiretsu Kōdan, an attack that is never once used in either manga or anime.There are additional, aggravating factors. These articles are laden with fair-use images, illustrating every single attack however minor, even if that attack can amply be described with prose. These articles are often highly speculative, due to the lack of reliable sources. Romanizations are unattributed; I'm fairly sure that a number of these Romanizations are controversial among fans. The lot of these articles are written from an in-universe style, which is |inappropriate. Even if these lesser issues were resolved, however, the fact remains that there's no verification and no discrimination, and that's just not the sort of thing that can be included in or allowed in this project.Incidentally, if anyone is questioning the nom's intent or credentials, then please consider mine instead, as I would have nominated these highly problematic articles had I been aware of them. I am neither a brand new user nor a possible sockpuppet or troll, as has been implied about the nom
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:WAF)

Comment: It's possible that they are fancruft, but that alone doesn't warrant deletion (please read ).  These articles are well written and cited.  They should stay.  I find Koji's point regarding your account interesting as well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:CRUFT)