Deletion of Ninjutsu (Naruto) (second nomination)

Comment: I agree that this page and its subpages go much into details, see |guidelines for the inclusion of fictional articles and |wikipedia's style guide for writing on fiction. However, it would be too cruel to delete all because it's the contribution of many people. I think we should cleanup the page by eliminating all the redundant details and shorten it as much as possible. Four subpages also should be merged into one article.Abelin
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICTION||WP:WAF)

Comment: a necessary part of comprehensive coverage of the series. In fact, a necessary part of comprehensible coverage of the series. Far from being fancruft, this glossary page is necessary to keep the rest of the pages from becoming fancruft, in that without it they would be impossible for the non-fan to understand. They do suffer from some serious  concerns due to their listing of jutsu by editor-invented English translations rather than the romaji forms, but that can be solved without deleting them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: I hate to turn into a raving inclusionist on this one, but the article is |verifiable by |reliable sources - the specific anime and manga (on the other hand, those are primary sources).    The overall subject (Naruto) is clearly notable, so we're really dealing with a question of how much specificity should the Naruto Wikipedia:Article series|article series contain.  The closest thing to a relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Fiction_in_Wikipedia|Notability (fiction) states ''Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice.''  This article is well written given the subject matter, meets the core policies, and seems to be dead on with the relevant section of Notability (fiction).  Ultimately, I say keep.  With respect, other than the argument that it's primary sourced, which is not grounds for deletion, the main deletion argument looks a lot like some flavor of IDONTLIKEIT to me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)