The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shereth 18:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball AF[edit]

Dragon Ball AF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A non-existent series sourced exclusively by fansites and fan rumors. Wikipedia isn't generally in the habit of giving notability to ne fan website's april fools joke that has no actual real world notability. Its pure WP:OR and a Hoax. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, sourced and notable, which makes it impossible to call WP:OR on it. Wether it's an april fool's joke or not, it's gained a lot of notability through the "rumors". It does exsist, just not as a series. It's an event, similar to Essjay.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in non-reliable sources does not make it notable. We aren't a rumor mill. It isn't similar to Essjay as Essjay actually had significant coverage in multiple news papers and other reliable sources. Please actually show where this fake series has significant coverage in reliable sources, not just fansites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why we should delete it instead of looking for sources?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 04:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article? It begins with Dragon Ball AF is a non-existent anime. And goes on to explain in detail how it doesn't exist (read the whole section titled Validity). — _Maggot^Syn 05:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Sourced to a fansite, which fails to meet the requirements for sourcing, and not notable, since the series doesn't exist. Rumors and April's Fools jokes are not encylopedic content - at best, move the article to a Dragonball wikia. Doceirias (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR and cited as hoax no less. I wasn't aware we had this article as I'm familiar with it. You'd have to establish how this fanishness is notable. (oh and this has nothing to do with Essjay, at all)— _Maggot^Syn 04:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The fact that DBAF doesn't exist is no reason for deletion. WP:HOAX articles are deleted, but articles on notable hoaxes are not. Now I ask you, how would one go about establishing this hoax's notability?--Nohansen (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteTo respond to the above, you would establish this hoax's notability the same as with any other - by multiple nontrivial mentions in independent reliable sources. When the hoax is noted by such, an article is appropriate. Until that time, one is not. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 09:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. Let's take the easy route and just delete the damn thing, so we don't have to do any work.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 15:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seriously original research. Greg Jones II 13:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Delete I don't really know where to stand on this in terms of policy. However, please note that from a notability point of view, there doesn't exist a fan of Dragonball beyond the occasional watcher that hasn't heard of AF, or mention of the possibility of a new series. It may not be a topic about a substantial "thing", do consider the fact that the idea exists and is highly notable in fandom at least. Of course, personally i don't feel this is deserving of an article, but i don't seem to be able to decide which way policy views it. Added, per Delete Though i feel the topic is somewhat more notable than it is given credit for, there is little chance of serious news articles referencing it, and therefore little way to determine notability. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR. Fan-driven OR is still OR. Eusebeus (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Original Research is only Original Research in terms of Wikipedia, when it's original here... obviously all topics were Original Research somewhere once. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage by reliable published sources from which to presume notability. Just because it is popular in some circles doesn't make it notable. --Farix (Talk) 00:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. I can't believe this crap still exists. Jonny2x4 (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everything said. This is just as insignificant as Dragon Ball RJ, save for the fact that it's a more popular hoax. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.