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 redirect to List of Vagabond chapters. Pretty clear consensus here that this article does not comply with the policies regarding the use of secondary sources and probably cannot be remedied. There is a suggestion that some of the content could be reused on another article; thus redirection rather than deletion. I see there are two potential redirect targets; I picked this one as the editor who proposed the other target was referring to this target in their argument, but the redirect can be altered following the usual means (bold editing, talk page discussion, WP:RFD discussion) if people desire. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vagabond story arcs[edit]

List of Vagabond story arcs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long fan-crufty list of story arcs with no secondary sources. "Vagabond story arcs" itself isn't notable by WP:GNG and therefore the list is not notable by WP:NLIST. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Resuming a 37-volumes-long manga is difficult, but I made my best shot to resume Vagabond. To that end, I kept an eye to the Wikipedia's policies regarding how to synthesize information. I ask you not to delete a work that took me a long time and in which I respected Wikipedia's policies. In any case, I'm sure that we can synthesize it even further until no doubts arise about its merits.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Diablo del Oeste: It's heavily unsourced and I agree it enters WP:FAN territory -- it's too overly detailed. Plus, are the story arcs officially titled that way? lullabying (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unsourced? I have all the volumes sitting right next to me, how could that be unsourced? I repeat that we can synthesize even more the story (which is already heavily synthesized, despite what you would believe). Story arcs are named using the common theme in those chapters, like in any story arc from any series.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This kind of synthesis is largely viewed as original research, particularly as there are no secondary sources or footnotes here at all. Even disregarding notability concerns, we don’t need to stray further from Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Diablo del Oeste: It lists the volumes as sources, but they are not formatted correctly -- I recommend citing specific pages. Moreover, this article highly relies on primary sources and needs secondary sources. lullabying (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:GNG, no secondary sources, and is just mostly WP:ORIGINAL and WP:FAN. lullabying (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I invite all of you to buy the 37 volumes and see with your own eyes that everything written is true and that humongous efforts were done to synthesize the 37 volumes in just a couple of lines per paragraph. Buy the 37 volumes and verify yourselves.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Diablo del Oeste: Might I remind you that the onus is on you to demonstrate the verifiability of the content, not the reader. But the more important point here is the notability concern anyways. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability? We are talking about the 20° best selling manga of all time, written by a major mangaka and which produced 37 volumes. Only notable manga series manage to reach 37 volumes.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of “Vagabond story arcs”, not Vagabond (manga). Please read the guideline on list notability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are not two separate entities that deal with two completely different contents, they talk about the same topic, and so notability is inherited from one to another, one is notable because the other is notable.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. The standalone list notability guideline states Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set. Here, the group is “Vagabond story arcs”. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the guideline Keep This poet is notable, so all his individual poems must be notable too. – All the trees in the forest, 14:15, 03 March 2009 (UTC) this list of story arcs is notable enough.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Diablo del Oeste: You need secondary sources to establish notability of this list. lullabying (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Diablo del Oeste: If you didn’t notice, that’s an example of what NOT to do. That’s from an essay called WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• REDIRECT to List of Vagabond chapters. Any information can be merged over there. This series "has sold more than 82 million copies worldwide, making it one of the best-selling manga series." Not sure if something that popular gets reviews somewhere for its notable arcs or not. They are sold in volume collections though, not story arcs. Dream Focus 20:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't think adding unsourced information into List of Vagabond chapters is going to improve that article. It would be one thing if the references were inline and the text verified, but they aren't. It would be better to delete this article without a redirect as the stories are indeed collected in chapters. Creating story arcs when none are defined is also WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Vagabond (manga) as with List of One Piece story arcs / Skypiea Arc. This depends on whether Vagabond has official names for their story arcs like One Piece does. The plot content can be added to List of Vagabond chapters. I don't see the original research issue as long as the plot is a summary of what was in the volumes, and that plot can be reviewed for accuracy and scrubbed for any editorializing / synthesis. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:09, 15 January 2020 (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.