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 Keep Naconkantari 03:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All articles in Category:Naruto episodes[edit]

Tons of fancruft, non of which as new info. Frenchman113 on wheels! 23:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - I'm afd nominating every article in the category, they're all non-notable.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 23:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

READ THIS BEFORE YOU VOTE. A ton of people have been saying that this stuff should be kept because it's important to have plot summaries. That's why I'll kindly point out Plot of Naruto and Plot of Naruto II.

• Delete: per Frenchman113. (heh, on wheels) I never really supported the decision to make articles out of the episodes in the first place. The Splendiferous Gegiford 01:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: Like most shows on wikipedia there are seprete pages for the episodes. So I think its stupid. Tons of fancruft, non of which as new info So what do you think of all the links I provided... Are all they fancruft to????
  • List of Rugrats episodes
  • 24 (season 5)#Episode_summaries
  • List of Prison Break episodes
  • List of Malcolm in the Middle_episodes
  • List of Will & Grace episodes
  • List of The Simpsons episodes
  • Category:Pokémon episodes
  • Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! GX episodes
  • List of King of the Hill episodes
  • List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes
• I hope I made my point

  There are alot more (Bobabobabo 01:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Lists of episodes are ok, individual articles on each episode is NOT. It violates WP:OR and WP:NOT.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 12:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. An encyclopedia catalogues knowledge. Each of the articles speaks solely to the content of the episode. There may be times when the article is more of a note than an article, but it still contains information. I have read through the articles; I have read Volumes 1 through 11 of Naruto. These articles are fairly accurate -- barring some translation issues yet to be completely cleared up. I believe some articles may need to be combined and/or clean-up, but none of them should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalvatoreRichardGomes (talk • contribs) 2006-09-24 02:25:32
• Keep per above for now. Currently, (as I am aware of) there is no policy forbidding episode articles. Personally I think only notable episodes should merit their own article (like those who create considerable hype/controversy). But like Bobabobabo pointed out there are countless other shows with individual episode articles. If you (Frenchman113) want to tackle this issue I suggest you propose a policy and discuss this issue with the community. Wikipedia:Notability talk page would be a good start. - Tutmosis 02:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) even better. - Tutmosis 02:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shouldn't this be in categories for deletion. JASpencer 08:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. CFD deals with deleting/renaming categories, not with deleting articles. Uncle G 08:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The relevant policy is Wikipedia:No original research. If individual episodes of television shows have not already been documented individually outside of Wikipedia, they may not be documented individually in Wikipedia. Some examples: There are plenty of people who have documented individual The Simpsons episodes on the World Wide Web, and people have even published books about Babylon 5 episodes (e.g. ISBN 1590920376 and ISBN 1590920392); whereas most soap operas do not have episode guides. For this series, you can find people publishing episode guides outside of Wikipedia here, here, here, here, here and many other places. Uncle G 08:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, it's fancruft, and I've never been able to sit through even half an episode, but using a bot to AfD 200 articles (that's correct ... 200 episode articles) in one swell foop just gives bad faith a Bad Name, IMHO. I wish that a show like King of the Hill had such an encyclopedic standing, since it appears to only have 1/10th as many articles. --141.156.232.179 12:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've voted Delete at the top, but I'd like to clarify my stance. There is no information in any of those articles not already covered in Plot of Naruto and Plot of Naruto II, both of which are absurdly long. Further, there is no possibility to make these articles more than just Original Research and fancruft.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 12:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep keep keep keep keep all We've had this discussion before, and I've mad my views clear every time: Synopses of notable television shows are no different than synopses of notable films or video games. They are significant, and they can be encyclopedic, and there's no reason to get rid of them. -- Kicking222 13:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please consider changing your vote, the information in the Episode articles are just copies of the data in Plot of Naruto and Plot of Naruto II.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 14:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Psc6 15:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• SPEEDY KEEP per WP:TV WP:LOE--Psc6 15:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please do not say that using an episode itself is original research, as it's not. The episodes themselves are the source. In addition, Naruot is a pretty notible show. Is it Pokemon, The Simpsons, or Star Trek? No. But is has spawned things in Japanese youth culture, among other things; that said, I agree with Tutmosis that the best thing would be to have singular articles of only the most notible ones. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫
• Keep Like anybody wants to read the summary of a saga. Maybe they would, but it'd be better to look for the episodes and points in the timeline you care about. The reason these pages should be kept is for the reasons that the plot pages are too huge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slammenhousa (talk • contribs) .
• Delete some Ok, there are some viable episodes in there. There are others that consist of the title and almost nothing else. i.e. "I want to fight you! Finally they clash, Sasuke vs Naruto (Japanese: オマエと戦いたい！ついに激突 サスケVSナルト - Omae to tatakaitai! Tsui ni gekitotsu Sasuke tai Naruto) is episode 107 of the anime series Naruto. The episode's storyline is the first part of the Sasuke Retrieval manga arc." Some editors love to create pages just to fill in series boxed. (I know! I do it on an outside fandom wiki.) I do not think every individual episode of a TV show is notable enough Wikipedia, but we have no one but Jimmy Wales to blame for their inclusion. --Kunzite 15:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all for two reasons. First, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes recommends merging instead of deletion (although at least some of these articles could probably stand on their own and don't need to be merged). Second, there's far too many articles nominated here to be able to research the encyclopedia-worthiness of every single one. JYolkowski // talk 15:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep; merge as needed, relist particularly problematic episode articles individually. This is a massively overbroad nomination; I've always said "AfD Isn't Cleanup", and I say for emphasis that "AfD Isn't the 20-Megaton Nuke to Level Tons of Cruft at Once" either. There's limits to what's sensible to bundle in one AfD, and one just doesn't nominate entire category of 200 articles up for deletion at once! Just look at what's happening with the esoteric programming language stuff right now: massive AfD that got reversed and is now being carried out again really slowly, as it should. And that was far less than 200 articles! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Individual articles for each episode is a way of condensing the main article about the series without omitting data. If these articles are simply cut-n-pastes of parts of the main article, then the main article can be precised with impunity. In my opinion, deleting the individual articles is not an appropriate response to the duplication. And I share the reservations about the scope of this nomination; it is de trop. —Theo (Talk) 16:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Clean Up per Salvatore --Alexie 18:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• EVERYONE READ THE COMMENTS BEFORE POSTING!. How many times do I have to say that all of the articles listed here are redundant?! There is nothing that isn't already covered in Plot of Naruto and Plot of Naruto II --Frenchman113 on wheels! 20:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It still doesn't make me wanna change my votes. --Alexie 22:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't think profanity and yelling will help your cause much. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Comment. Oddly for some reason the anime filler arc episodes are NOT listed in the manga plot summaries Frenchman113. and that consist of EVERYTHING episode 136-202+ and so on until the episodes once again coincide with the manga story arcs you are so rampant to keep pointing too.71.71.79.235 00:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT. As the nominator has already pointed out, appropriate plot summaries already exist, so no merging is necessary. — Haeleth Talk 22:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I agree that some of these articles are useless for now, but still... I mean, over 200 articles. There's bound to be at least something in there of encyclopedic value. Also, if you'd notice, some of these are not done. Rather than complain about them, why not expand them until they are of encyclopedic value. Or, perhaps, we can merge by arc if the articles are small enough... You Can't See Me! 03:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And I forgot to mention: True there are appropriate plot summaries that already exist. However, if that was a viable excuse, well, Wikipedia wouldn't have any articles would it? Everything on Wikipedia is a compilation of information from appropriate sources. Anyone can go onto google and find an article on President Bush, stem cell research, immigration, the Revolutionary War, tuberculosis, Mario Tennis, and the like. Including the topic at hand: Episode Summaries. Though I have to say, it's much harder to find plot summaries for specific episodes of a television series taking place in a fictional universe than any of the other topics listed above. You Can't See Me! 04:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ridiculously overbearing level of precedent. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why this and not the articles listed at the top? One wonders why you take personal offense to this --pahsons 17:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, merge as needed per wwwolf and others. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This AfD is a mess. And if you've got a problem with individual episode articles, why haven't you nominated all the South Park episode articles? NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because the nomination at hand is to keep or delete all Naruto episode summaries, I vote to let them live. However, I fail to see how an article on every single episode is necessary, especially when their synopsis is only a "paragraph" in length or simply nonexistent. If ever there is a nomination to delete only these overly short articles, then I will probably vote to delete them. ~SnapperTo 03:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, calling everyone who votes to keep these articles your foe is very mature. ~SnapperTo 03:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely Keep: We should definitely keep the episodes!! For one thing, I spent hours writing some of those articles myself!! Wikipedia is an international forum and there's those who can't watch the episodes for whatever reason!! It's not like we're posting episode downloads here and the summaries don't really have episode images!! I think if Naruto fans knew what were going on in the episodes it would encourage them to buy the DVDs!! So I say we keep the articles!!

  Comment: Wikipedia doesn't exist "to encourage people to buy the DVDs". Images or lack of them aren't the issue here either; nor does the fact someone spent a lot of time on an article make it a valid reason for keeping them. As I said above, my opinion is that the best thing to do is keep the most notible episodes, but this particular AFD isn't the best way of going about a consensus toward that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone "spending a lot of time on an article" is not a valid reason to keep. People spend lots of time writing fanfiction or concocting lists of left-handed Star Trek characters. Those articles are usually removed. In the case of TV episodes, even though they may be non-notable, they're usually kept because of precedent. --Kunzite 12:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up I have to admit, the filler episodes don't need an article but everything in the main story plot should be kept.Verde830 15:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  In terms of a series, every episode is important. Even if the manga is the original source, facts in the articles are taken from the fillers, as well. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there's a clear precedent for having articles on episodes of a show. If you'd like to delete all such articles, then you can try starting a discussion on that. Otherwise, episodes of notable shows are generally notable via WP:POKEMON. Cool3 23:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --TheYmode 23:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It should be in Jeffklib 02:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, merging as needed per wwwolf. -Aknorals 10:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep'em, clean those in need of cleaning. Skalman
• Keep The precedent is rather ridiculous. Aside from South Park, there are Friends, Seinfeld and the list goes on. The fact that people have written so extensively about it proves that the show is notable enough to merit this. Mergers or expansions are called for, not deletion. An episode summary logically offers an opportunity for a more detailed and specific synopsis than an overall plot summary. If the episode descriptions were specific than the Plot of Naruto and Naruto II sections which some people have called too long could be reduced without a great loss of information, though reducing the plot pages may not be possible in any event simply because Naruto has a long and fairly intricate plot.Rayfire 18:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bad reason to be deleting. All this needs is a little cleaning. Jerwong 21:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but clean up It seems that some, if not most, of the episodes in question, primarily those in the beginning, have enough information to warrant individual articles. However, two or three episode long filler arcs should be merged into one article. As for the ones that basically have a name and an episode number, more information needs to be gathered. However, if we were to delete every episode from the list in favor of a brief summary, we could in theory delete every stub here in favor of a massive compilation of related, yet vague, information. The individual episode descriptors expound on the information given in the summary, but to actually add that information to the summary itself would make it too unwieldy. MasterRadius 05:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Delete -- Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. The fact that it is on computers doesn't change that. A list of episodes with title, date of first airing and a 2-3 sentence plot synopsis is fine. But no print encyclopedia would have entire articles about who looked at whom, who looked sad, etc. That just isn't encyclopedic content. I looked through "Bushy Brow's Pledge". It is absolutely ridiculous. There is FAR too much detail for an encyclopedia article on a single episode. A "plot summary" is not a scene-by-scene description!

  We have to keep in mind that WP does not have unlimited bandwidth and disk space. If fans want to describe hundreds of episodes in so much detail, they should set up a website, not clog up a non-profit public general encyclopedia site with tons of information that less than one site visitor in 100,000 wants to see. RickReinckens 06:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Assume 15kb per article with 200 articles. That's 3000kb. It fits on a floppy disk. It's not clogging anything. You're just posing a ridiculously unlikely scenario. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 07:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, can we close this per WP:SNOW? The result should be obvious by this point. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 07:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is this not a database of knowledge? If you delete this article just because you didn't want to know about it ahead of time, then aren't you defeating the purpose of having a database of knowledge in the first place? Hmn. This seems like a rather ridiculous discussion to have. A synopsis is a synopsis whether you like it or not. If you don't agree with it, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Close the topic and leave the episodes alone, already.

This is true, however, articles still need to fall within WP:NN, which is the main issue here. By the logic you're presenting, I could make a page about myself and it should be allowed because it's still knowledge. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that Frenchman113 is voting to delete ALL of the articles in question, not just the less-notable ones. It actually seems to me that Frenchman is voting on this not out of concern fo bandwidth and space, but out of personal bias against the show. Think about it: Frenchy used a bot to list every single episode under AfD, meaning he didn't even check them for content- he just deemed them unworthy, offering was that it was "Tons of fancruft, non of which as new info" as his justification. It has been clarified that most people who voted on this want to keep it, albeit with minor changes in some cases, but the few who claim deletion a definite edict have or can have their views disproved, save for their dislike of anime. Furthermore, the Frenchman rersorts to personal attacks on a regular basis, even referring to those who vote against him his "foes". Truthfully, if this really warranted such an extreme clause of deletion, we wouldn't be talking about it; it'd be gone already. The fact that this "conversation", if you can call it that, is being held means it needs to stay. If you feel we should clean it up, don't vote here; start a new discussion regarding its reorganization. However, under no circumstances should we delete over 200 articles just because some french guy labels them as "fancruft".MasterRadius 19:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC), and the horse you rode in on[reply]

I looked at Frenchman's user page, and saw an infobox that noted he hates anime. Why am I not suprised? NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 08:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: --Al1976 19:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: By logic of the nominator, all episode listings should be taken down. However, I do not see any of the others up for AFD. If anything needs to be done, a few of the articles could be cleaned up. Diametes T. Jackson 07:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: At worst, this is a work in progress. Yes, a print encyclopedia would not have detailed summaries of every episode, but WP is better as an encyclopedia for having them, and its hardly a huge burden in terms of K. The plot summaries may contain some of the same information, but a history of WW2 may contain reference to battles that have their own pages. I also vote that we end this now, seeing that the keep vote is overwhelming. Note also that while a plot summary is not enough for a good article, "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article, or as part of a series of articles..." I would say that the episode pages are most certainly aspects of the larger Naruto articles. Plunge 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this should not be deleted

• Delete Some Most of it is rendunant. We should just keep the important episodes like what Power Rangers does. Silver95280 02:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete Some", in this particular case, is like taking 200 criminals (a bunch of serial killers, a bunch of bicycle thieves, all named Fred Fooman with different middle initials) to courtroom one bright day and then recommending "oh, yeah, give a few life sentences." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It should be kept. Indeed, I just stumbled here only because I was looking for a list of naruto episodes and exact titles. The first place I looked was wikipedia for a reason.
• it should stay. It just helped me, Who knows who else it has helped and will helped. Keep it.Same for all TV shows.

If it is too much of a clutter for the main wikipedia site. Maybe what should happen should be a branch off of TV shows. In the same sense of wikiquotes or wikitionary. Once again, I say KeepRhythmic01 05:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, it's been eight days now. Shouldn't this be closed? The consensus is obvious. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just request an admin to close this AfD overon WP:AN. They're pretty receptive toward requests to close old AfDs. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 02:02, 2 October 2006 (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.