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, noting a lack of reliable, independent sources to support this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of One Piece locations[edit]

List of One Piece locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:OR, and WP:V. Failed PROD. Prod removed with "get consensus first, please." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fancruft, better suited to the Wikia. Doceirias (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. This should be transwikied if possible. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no real-world notability established. Huon (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and transwiki. ~DoubleAW^[c] 00:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and immediate closure of AFD; This entire debacle is just a steaming pile of Deletionism, in which I can find no actual reason for deletion beyond the hyper-anal view of improper article structure. The article is sourced with non-cited primary sources (the source material itself, which counts as a primary source within the rules as far as I can tell). And in addition, one of the policies is improperly used in the first place, and one of them isn't even a guideline, and last time I checked, there is no rule against violating something that is not a rule. [[Justyn (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Note: Justyn was canvassed to come help "save some OP" pages.[1]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell does how I came to the page have to do with my point? Yes, Angel told me about this because she and I have worked together on One Piece related pages before, and I believe that it is because she and I have worked on these pages before that she gave me that notice.

And I also noticed that rather than even give the least bit of an effort to refute my arguement, you used an ad hominem attack against me, my reason for posting, and manner of arrival upon this page. [[Justyn (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

How you came to it does matter, when you were asked to some argue for its keeping. We do have rules against canvassing to try and sway an AfD. To refute your arguments, there are no grounds for speedy keep with four deletes already logged. Your rather ludicrous demand that the AfD be closed because you don't like "deletionists" is just that, ludicrous, and not a valid argument at all. You have not, in fact, given any evidence or real arguments refuting the AfD reasons nor supporting deletes. You made a false claim of Plot being "improperly used" and a false claim that its being AfDed for having bad structure. And if you want to be "hyper-anal" and try to claim WP:FICT is not a guideline, just go up the line and note it also fails WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First. I stated that WP:OR and WP:V are invalid here; the page uses the source material, which you yourself said is fine to use.

Second, I did not say that the page should not be deleted because of deletionism. I said that the page should not be deleted, and that there is deletionism involved (splitting hairs, but still). I should have worded this better.

Third, WP:FICT is not a guideline, it is a proposed guideline; while WP:N is a policy, and I never claimed any less.

Fourth, Angel told me about something that I would get involved in if I had just stumbled upon it. Justyn (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate being misquoted. The entire conversation notes that plot summaries (as in the plot section of a series article) and episode/chapters summaries are not OR and do not need to be sourced. Character lists, and things like this do need to be sourced, either to the primary or to third-party sources. WP:V is not invalid here. It clearly states if there is NO third-party coverage (from reliable sources, of course, not a fansite) of a topic, it should not have an article. WP:OR in that the list includes fan guesses and rumors "filling in the blanks" of what is not stated in the series and interpreting events in teh series to reach conclusions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I guess I misread what you were talking about. And to be honest, I really dislike all the speculations myself. Justyn (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a unified list and a reasonable way of presenting the material, assuming the basic work is important, which I cannot judge. DGG (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a valid way of collecting this information. Ford MF (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Collectonian - no third party coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks reliable sources and the information cannot be verified, thus the content could be original research and fail WP:NPOV. This leads me to believe that the subject is not notable and is eligible for deletion. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:30, 15 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.