Deletion of Naruto geography (2nd nomination)

Comment: per nom. No indication of notability per . Also largely a #PLOT|plot summary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT||WP:NOT)

Comment: per . This isn't really a notability issue; essentially just a style issue. None of the pages in, say, :Template:Pokemon directory for example, conform to the generic test of . Demanding substantial and credible coverage ''specifically'' on the subject of ''Naruto geography'' is nearly as ludicrous as demanding to see a New York Times|NYT-like article devoted ''specifically'' to the subject of ''lists of Pokemon #461-480''. Credible sources don't write about ''Naruto geography'', ''lists of Pokemon having numbers between 461 and 480'', or ''lists of bridges in China'' in particular -- they write about ''Naruto'', ''Pokemon'', and ''Bridges'', and an exorbitant number of credible texts could be found which attend to those narrower topics but don't go into detail.  agrees: ''"To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons).3 In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article."'' Most topics -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game for example -- don't have the significance to merit S of this kind; Naruto, being very highly significant, does
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS||WP:N||WP:FICT||WP:SPINOUT)

Comment: per nom. Deletion of this article under  and #PLOT was largely inevitable. A "Naruto universe" article along the lines of Ivalice or Universe of Kingdom Hearts would be a more appropriate for these lists of fictional topics. I've moved relevant material to my userspace in any case should any information need to be used in such an article or merged into relevant articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT||WP:NOT)

Comment: ridiculously filled with |original content, the page has no #Secondary information|secondary information either and fails . The sources section lists the databooks as references but there is no indication that they're |reliable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:WAF||WP:NOTE||WP:RS)

Comment: riddled with |original research and seriously lacks the sourcing necessary to provide real-world context as outlined by , , and .  This article is just not notable and there is no realistic way to make it notable.  Sure you could say that you could look for stuff on Google, but there are just too many fancruft sites to sort through
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:FICT||WP:N||WP:PLOT)