Deletion of List of Dragon Ball special abilities

Comment: if |sources can be found (which shouldnt be that dificult). I do not see how sources can be provided for other article here nominated
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: or move to some niche-interest wiki; this suffers from  and general cruftiness. Stylistically, it also fails  (which is not a reason for deletion, I know
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:WAF)

Comment: The three individual attack articles are not just fancruft, they are also completely unsourced and are |unverifiable. The list is full of |Original research, there is no reason to see the ''attacks'' as anything other than non-notable cruft
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR)

Comment: with cleanup and cutback of fan speculation. This was an dubious multiple nomination - it should have been conducted as four seperate noms. As pop culture/fiction, a measure of discretion is required requiring ; the '''show''' is extremely notable, and we can work, using common sense, from there. I am doubtful that there is much academic peer-reviewed information on Radagast (Middle-earth) or Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series, for example
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: As explained already about a million times, these do not violate  in any way. It also isn't "fancruft", as explained earlier. Please try to read some of the discussion before voting
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: This article is not a FAQ, travel guide, memorial, instruction manual, internet guide, textbook or annotated text, or plot summary.  Most votes for deletion seem to be based on ... BUT: "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page."  This is verifiable information, it doesn't push an agenda, and it's a notable part of an extremely popular and well-known anime & manga.  Just because it is/will be on the Dragon Ball Wikia doesn't mean it can't also be here. Just adding links to the wikias (which are not all that well maintained and large portions of them are just out-of-date, partial WP mirrors) would quickly turn Wikipedia into a link directory anyway
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per nom. Even the Kamehameha, while perhaps an important concept in the series, does not need this much detail - the entire article could be boiled down into a single paragraph. Quite simply, this is an encyclopedia not a fan-wiki, and as such it is quite adequate to describe a character's ''most important'' abilities ''in that character's article'', and only break them out if (like Superman) those characters and abilities are so culturally relevant that it is important to discuss them in more detail than there's room for in a single article.Note that this clearly doesn't apply to these abilities, because even references to Dragonball in other series tend  to refer only to very general concepts like "powering up", not to specific attacks.As for the people above |biting the nominator and |assuming bad faith, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Note that it is necessary to create an account before one can nominate an article for deletion these days. It is quite plausible that the nominator is a long-term contributor who has not previously had any reason to create an account. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE||WP:AGF)

Comment: Big problem here.  If this article and the Kamehameha pages get deleted, where do the interwiki links go?  Back to Dragonball Z?  (Half of you are wondering "what interwiki links?")  The Kamehameha (Dragon Ball) article is already in 6 other Wikipedias!  (To forestall the comments of "notability is different across Wikipedias", no it's not; that's heavy |bias.)  The attacks page only has two (French and Japanese), but we still need a place to put them.  Don't ignore these
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:CSB)