Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga

message: Why is archiving done manually, instead of using one of the bots? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Would it be worthwhile to list PRODs in the deletion archive? —Dinoguy1000 05:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing PRODs in the archive 

message: Based on previous deletions, and the current tag and assess, we should probably go through the anime and manga articles and clear the following out/merge whatever relevant information there is to the primary article. Thoughts? G.A.Stalk 05:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much agreed on all of the above! Would also add most video games, especially the unlicensed games. Only a few are actually notable enough to support a full article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agreed 100%. Let's wipe all this worthless, cancerous cruft that destroys the quality and legitmacy of our scholarly encyclopedia right off the face of the internet, and quickly. With gusto, we'll show all those IPs and anime fans that their ridiculous drivel has no place here among real articles. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree to a degree. I think album articles should not be deleted, but rather merged if the album isn't notable on its own. I think most timelines are probably not necessary, but there are some series which have extended timelines (decades or centuries) where a timeline can prove extremely useful for those unfamiliar with the series. Again, most series don't need them, but there are some which would benefit from them. Finally, I object to the extremely uncivil and bad faith tone of saying all of these articles are "worthless, cancerous cruft that destroys the quality and legitmacy (sic) of our scholarly encyclopedia". While it's true that some fans are a little overzealous in expanding articles about their favorite shows or manga, calling their contributions "ridiculous drivel" have no place here and only serves to be divisive and drive people away when they might otherwise become good contributors. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, Norse was likely being sarcastic. That said, I'm hard pressed to find an example of the above (save albums, which definitely can assert notability if sources are available) that satisfies WP:NOTE, and actually justifies an article being created for it. Timelines and technique lists inevitably fall into the WP:NOT#PLOT trap, and most glossaries are full of excessive, random tidibts that likely could be summarized in a "Setting" section in the main article. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I think "timeline suitable for Wikipedia", Gundam immediately pops into my mind. Considering the popularity of the franchise, its longevity, and the sheer number of series (in both the main Gundam and derivative universes) under its belt, a single timeline article covering the whole universe could definitely meet all applicable guidelines, if handled correctly. —Dinoguy1000 18:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if it can show adequate notability, which is possible but doubtful. A better way would be an overarching series article that has an extensive history section (as in real world history of the different media and the in-universe timeline is commented on). — sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been established many times that articles considered subarticles for a specific series do not have to establish separate notability if they were split out or would contain too much information to be included in the main article. And as Dinoguy1000 pointed out, there are some series where a timeline is really necessary to help people understand the relationship between all the different parts of a series (he mentioned Gundam, and another series would be Legend of the Galactic Heroes). I completely agree that most series don't need them, and those could have everything included in a short section in the main article. However, very lengthy series practically require a timeline to gain any sort of decent understanding of the topic due to the epic nature of the series.  ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was established for character lists, not for anything else. If anything, the recent RfC on notability came very strongly against spinouts (one of the very few things it did). A timeline wouldn't be exempt from WP:NOTE, and besides that, is extremely suspectible to simply being deleted per WP:NOT#PLOT. Again, I don't have a problem with a timeline if it can assert adequate notability, but the grand majority do not, and instead are a long train of nothing more than plot summary. Regardless of the length of the series, the timeline needs to assert notability. Alternative methods are overarching series articles, which is probably the best way to go about it without creating a giant timeline that will be shot down for failing NOT#PLOT fairly quickly. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's applicable to episode lists, too, so the same thing can be applied to other subarticles which are deemed to be necessary for a complete understanding of the series. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not. The only things that are acceptable are character and episode lists (and chapter lists when appropriate). You're arguing that spinouts are appropriate, and I'm pointing out that if the recent RfC on notability did anything, it came very strongly against spinouts. Aside from consensus-allowed spinouts, everything else has to assert notability. Such a timeline would be deleted per NOTE and NOT#PLOT. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's absurd. In the cases I mentioned, the timelines would be invaluable in providing understanding of the series in question. This seems to be a case of people going a little overboard when deciding what is and is not encyclopedic. Making an across-the-board decision such as this without allowing for special cases such as those I mentioned is not beneficial to the encyclopedia as it intentionally prevents the creation of subarticles which would greatly enhance the main article, but be too large to be included in the main article. And, just to be clear, I am not saying that timelines should be allowed for absolutely everything; just those series where they would be most useful due to the epic nature of the series (or meta-series, in the case of Gundam). I am not arguing that all spinouts are appropriate. Not at all. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I can see being acceptable is a development history article of the Gundam franchise. The in-universe history can be discussed within. A pure in-universe timeline without adequate notability asserted will be deleted. It's really as plain as that. I'm pointing to the RfC just to illustrate how narrow these exceptions are. In absence of a tangible guideline or consensus to give weight to these timelines as exceptions, then they will be deleted per NOTE and NOT#PLOT. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

text: And on the topic of video games, do a quick check of the major video game reviewing websites (GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy, 1UP.com, etc.), and if you can't find anything there, check Metacritic or Game Rankings. It's not that hard usually to find adequate sourcing. If the game has a Japanese-only release, then it is likely difficult for adequate notability to be found, but given the number of visual novels have been brought to GA, I'm willing to bet that many of them could assert notability. All this said, to err on the side of caution here is probably best. A good deal of video games are non-notable, but just pointing out that there is a bundle of possible sourcing that might not be immediately apparent. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See also WP:NALBUMS. I presume that the video games which AnmaFinotera are referring to are spin-offs of anime, which have no English release, and hardly any information (even in Japanese) at all; which can be easily merged into the main article. (E.g. Tokyo Mew Mew#Video games contains all of the information – reception and otherwise – that we were able to find about the specific games.) G.A.Stalk 07:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do: 

message: I have added a subscription for a bot maintained list to ease the updating of these lists. This list is transcluded below. 
I recommend changing it to show only misc deletions (i.e. excluding articles), and transcluding it on WP:ANIME/D at the bottom, that way it will not be necessary to maintain those deletions by hand, subject to the project banner being included on those pages. 
Article deletions can then still be updated from Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/News/Article alerts. 
The instructions for Anime and manga categories, templates, and misc and Proposed deletions can then also be removed.
G.A.Stalk 11:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This may have been better brought up on the main project page, since this one doesn't get much traffic. That being said, though, some manual maintenance is still necessary with this system, since completed discussions still have to be archived, and we currently don't have a bot or script that can archive for us (hint hint), since User:The wubbot can't handle the archive format. —Dinoguy1000 22:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but then again, only the persons actually watching this page would be interested in this. Unfortunately, yes, there is still the archive issue, but since the bot actually lists the outcome, it should be somewhat easier to archive. I have also put in a request for improvement for the bot to transclude discussions. It may help a bit in situations like these. G.A.Stalk 08:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, but with the current system, archiving completed TfDs, CfDs, PRODs, etc. consists of simply cut-pasting a single line and noting the date the discussion was concluded (if applicable) and the outcome - this is actually why I created/hijacked the , , and  templates, because I'm lazy like that. ^_^ —Dinoguy1000 22:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See below for the current bot output. I have put in a request to have the cellpadding removed; this should improve readability. G.A.Stalk 12:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Nope. The list is updated if the project template () is on the article's talk page. Unfortunately the bot does not add the notification by itself. G.A.Stalk 17:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, okay. That's fine. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot maintained list 

message: The project page says at the bottom"
Proposed deletions
no articles proposed for deletion at this time
    * Spitfire (manga) (via WP:PROD on 2009-02-17)
    * List of Spitfire characters (via WP:PROD on 2009-02-17)
    * Dominic Akuma (via WP:PROD on 2009-02-17)
''
How can you say no articles are proposed for deletion at this time, and then list some that are?  And just nominate the things if you are going to, don't get sneaky with this method, which most won't notice.  I see a lot more things are proposed for deletion listed on this discussion page, instead of on the project page also.  Why is that?   Dream Focus 12:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The list on this page is bot maintained. The list on the project page is manually maintained. Feel free to update it. Cheers, -- Goodraise (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed deletions? 

message: I often patrol prods, and I list any anime or manga related articles here when I see them.  However, sometimes I see articles that clearly don't belong, like Code Geass r3 yesterday (someone's discussion of the reasons they think another season of Code Geass should or shouldn't be made), or Cool naruto characters (which gives as its source an article that was speedy deleted from http://narutofanon.wikia.com).  I've been wondering if people would prefer I list things like, or if I should only list articles that have some hope of being made encyclopedic. Calathan (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: List them regardless, then when they are archived we can refer back to them later. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply.  I'll list all of them I see from now on. Calathan (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should I bother listing articles that clearly will be deleted? 

message: Currently I see over 25 PRODs that have been completed (Deprodded, Redirected, not sent to AfD) should I archive them or wait a week? Normally I would wait a week but there are so many of them. Just asking for future reference. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on to them for now, as I suspect many of them will continue to be worked through, with further actions to come -- this helps keep track of what's going on. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay and thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  So many PRODS 

message: I listed four prods here of songs by Jyukai that had been used as anime themes.  Since people seemed to be cleaning up the articles, I wanted to point out that their albums and other songs were also prodded (the article for the band was also prodded, but it has already been cleaned up).  I didn't list those other articles here as they seemed less directly related to anime, but I figured people might want to know about them. Calathan (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 159.182.1.4 is already in action there :p --KrebMarkt (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He removed prods from ones I listed here, but no one has done anything with the ones I didn't list here (namely Sakasete wa Ikenai Hana‎, Komoriuta/Himegoto‎, Harvest (Jyukai album)‎, and Wild Flower (album)).  Those are the ones that I meant to point out here, in case anyone wants to work on cleaning them up. Calathan (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing that they have been Prodded I have listed them at AfD. I actully Prodded one of them myself earlier as I can see not alot of work had been done on the article but chose rather to tag it for editor reference. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As it doesn't look like you have listed them at AfD, I think you mean that you listed them on the anime/manga deletion sorting page.  However, I think you may have misunderstood why I mentioned those articles here rather than listing them on the anime/manga deletion sorting page.  The articles for Sakasete wa Ikenai Hana‎ and Komoriuta/Himegoto‎ don't mention anything about anime, so I don't see why they should be listed at the anime/manga deletion sorting page (unless you know of an anime connection that I am unaware of).  For Harvest (Jyukai album)‎ and Wild Flower (album), those albums contain songs used as anime themes, but I had still not listed them as I wasn't sure if they were anime-related enough to be listed. Calathan (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed Sakasete wa Ikenai Hana‎ and Komoriuta/Himegoto‎ from the list of anime/manga prods as I don't think they have any anime/manga connection.  I've left Harvest (Jyukai album)‎ and Wild Flower (album) listed, as they contain songs used in anime. Calathan (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Looking all through Wikipedia:Notability (music) and came to the answer of, no. This may be a inclusion criterion for bands and musicians (WP:MUSICBIO), but not for songs, singles, or albums (WP:NSONG). The reason for that is it's generally unlikely for a theme song to receive significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources, but it is not unlikely for a band or singer of a theme song to receive such coverage. What can really be covered by an song article anyways and would it not be better to to include the material in the band's or singer's discography in order to beef up their article? —Farix (t | c) 12:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jyukai (band)]] 

message: I know we want to list MfDs to userfied articles or working drafts that appear to have be abandoned, but what about userpages of fan-created material/spam, such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sonic GirlZ (Series) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sonic GC? —Farix (t | c) 18:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That stuff has to be deleted? If it's on an abandoned userpage, it doesn't seem like it will get in the way.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MfD listing 

message: I know articles nominated for speedy deletion often don't stick around long enough for anyone to notice them, but if I do happen to notice one, should it be listed somewhere on the deletion sorting page?  If so, where should it be listed (there doesn't seem to be a section for speedy deletions).  I'm asking because I happened to notice that Nangoku Shōnen Papuwa-kun was nominated for speedy deletion. Calathan (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should articles nominated for speedy deletion be listed somewhere? 

message: Should merges have a section here?  AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite follow what you are saying, are you asking for a merge section to be placed on the project page or here on the talk page? I wouldn't support a merge section on the project page as deletions aren't meant for this process. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  On this project page, as a lot of merges are being proposed in place of outright AFD's, but with the same result that the article is deleted and replaced with a redirect? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would encourage merge discussions with RfAs if needed rather than placing a subsection. I know there are a lot now, but looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Deletion Archive there have only been 4 redirected articles done this year. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merges? 

message: Hello, there is an article at AfD that needs input: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvey Tolibao (2nd nomination). It's been open since July 24, due to a lack of participation/consensus. Anyone interested is welcome to join the discussion.   // Timothy :: talk  17:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  Per WP:ANIME: This project maintains an essential focus on anime, manga, and related merchandise originally meant for consumption in Japan. Therefore, its scope does not include works with incidental or minor association. The subject you linked does not fall under this scope. lullabying (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article at AfD that needs input 

message: See , this page is opted out from AnomieBOT's auto-archiving which is active on nearly all other Deletion sorting pages. To enable auto-archiving all that is needed is to remove   from the page. Is there any objection to doing so? Pikavoom (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: you are the last two users to manually archive this page, though quite a while back. Are you opposed to removal the bot optout? Pikavoom (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections from me. I was also curious why it was opted out, but didn't dig too deep into it. Jumpytoo Talk 22:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removed optout. From what I can tell this is a historic remnant that isn't needed. Pikavoom (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The discussion involving bot opt out is actually here on this page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga#Bot maintained list. The issue with deletion outcomes showing up appears to have been resolved though. Are there any lingering concerns above that have since been addressed? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so. All the other deletion sorting archiving are handled by AnomieBOT. The big issue with manual archiving is that it doesn't happen, in the past two years it has been a manual archive once a year. Pikavoom (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto-archiving, objections to removing opt out?