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 all to List of One Piece story arcs. Feel free to retrieve stuff from the edit histories if it can be sourced, but don't ask the closing admin to shuffle unsourced stuff around. Unsourced stuff doesn't magically become sourced by copying-and-pasting. ~ trialsanderrors 05:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece plot summaries[edit]

Post-Enies Lobby arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Contested Prod. Entirely a plot summary with no real-world context and sourced analysis, which violates WP:FICT and WP:NOT. Was originally prodded along with all of the other arc/saga articles in ((One Piece)). If the other articles are deprodded, I prefer to roll them up into this one AfD. Already rolled into this AfD --Farix (Talk) 19:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Also included in this AfD:[reply]

• East Blue Saga
  • Captain Morgan arc
  • Buggy the Clown arc
  • Captain Kuro arc
  • Baratie arc
  • Arlong arc
  • Loguetown arc
• Baroque Works Saga
  • Laboon arc
  • Whiskey Peak arc
  • Little Garden arc
  • Drum Island arc
  • Alabasta arc
• Skypiea Saga
  • Jaya arc
  • Skypiea arc
• CP9 Saga
  • Davy Back Fight arc
  • Water 7 arc
  • Enies Lobby arc
• Others:
  • Warship Island arc
  • Post-Alabasta Arc
  • Goat Island (One Piece)
  • Rainbow Mist Arc
  • G8 Arc
  • Ocean's Dream arc

Related One Piece discussions:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece manga (English version)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece anime (English adaptation)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 19:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into an encyclopedic "Storyline of One Piece" article or something like it. I know that the arcs are used as arbitrary divisions to link the various parts of this near 300 and ongoing anime series (and an equally as abundant amount of manga chapters).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if merged, it would be one hell of an long article which would still violate WP:NOT#INFO as a plot summary. Also, many of these articles contain a fair amount of original research and fan speculation and no third-party citations whatsoever. Better to wipe the slate clean and start all over with a very brief overview on the main article with annotated episode lists as subarticles. --Farix (Talk) 22:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge useful information, such as episodes summaries and whatnot.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Isn't this what List of One Piece story arcs already is? --Squilibob 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• For related discussions, see The Past Of The Three Swords! The Promise Between Zoro And Kuina! (AfD discussion), The World's Strongest Weirdo! Django The Hypnotist! (AfD discussion), Completely Infuriated! Kuro Vs Luffy Final Battle! (AfD discussion), I'll Make It Bloom! Manly Usopp's Eight-Shaku Ball (AfD discussion), and I'm Luffy! The Man Who Will Become Pirate King (AfD discussion). It is worth noting that having articles on the story arcs (with redirects, of course) may make better sense than having individual articles on the individual episodes. Uncle G 17:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Merge There is technicaly no basis for deletion; the pages themselves do not have this information on them, but the actual One Piece page does indeed make these assertions. (Justyn 11:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

(Cchanged actual vote; but reasoning remains. (Justyn 06:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)))[reply]

<move discussion about appropriateness of AFD to the talk page.>

• Merge: Into one article maybe... But if this article was deleted it wouldn't be too much of a loss... :/ Angel Emfrbl 13:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I have to agree that it wouldn't be too much of a loss if they were deleted. Netuser500 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd go for delete, as even if someone's willing to condense / merge it into a single article giving a far more general overview of the series's plot, I think such an attempt would basically involve a completely rewritten article rather than a merge of the existing ones. FredOrAlive 01:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment That's my problem with the merge !votes. These articles can't be reasonably merged because there is just too many plot details to deal with. This is a case where starting over would be the best option. But one must also question the relevance of such high levels of plot detail in an encyclopedia article. That's why WP:NOT actually forbids such "Plot of" articles, instead it states editors should focus on the work's real-world context, achievements, and impact. With all of the plotish articles on One Piece, there is almost not mentions of it as a marketing franchise nor it's impact on Japanese/anime culture. --Farix (Talk) 04:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A big thing with that is because all of the information on real-world context is either: hard to find, falls under Wikipedia's definition of "original research", is in Japanese, or does not satisfy WP:RS. For instance: a 4Kids executive has said flat out that they will not dub One Piece anymore, Toei has said that 4Kids will not dub One Piece anymore, pretty much EVERY One Piece fan on the internet knows that the 4Kids dub is dead: Wikipedia will not allow this fact to entered because there has been no public announcement. (Justyn 22:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Seems you've made a pretty good argument for deletion. Though I do want to correct one error you made. Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines are that English language sources are preferred over foreign language sources, not English language sources are required while foreign language sources are excluded. --Farix (Talk) 15:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of the frequent editors of these pages (myself included) speak anything close to a native level of Japanese, meaning that even if we could find the sources, we would have no idea that we found them. (Justyn 17:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete I've checked WP:NOT and I must change my vote. Admin/vote counter, please ignore my vote to "Merge". Netuser500 23:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge useful information into the individual saga pages would be the best option, in my opinion. True, it is just a plot summary, but completely deleting all this information would be too big a loss.--The last sheikah 16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - what's the useful information that should be merged? As you say it's mostly a plot summary, and I think it would be basically need to be rewritten from scratch to become a far more general description of One Piece's plot, rather than the lengthy summary it is now. WP:FICTION discourages having even one seperate article for the plot summary, so have 4 or 5 (depending on how you handle "filler") is still probably too much. FredOrAlive 17:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  IN addition to that, looking at that List of One Piece story arcs page linked above, that's a far more reasonable article to use for a general plot overview, and it already exists, so perhaps rename that to something like "One Piece plot overview" or something similar if these pages are deleted. FredOrAlive 17:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All Per nom, WP:NOT and WP:N /Blaxthos 08:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Please explain what notibility has to do with this in the slightest. (Justyn 18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  We are an encyclopedia, not a place to summarize the various storylines of your favorite anime. /Blaxthos 19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment That has absolutly nothing to do with notibility whatsoever. And we should maybe take this under consideration. (Justyn 20:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

How is it notable that "Django resorta to hypnotizing his men into believing their invincible but that tactic backfires when Luffy is hypnotised as well and procceds to wreak havoc on the Black Cats and their ship before Django puts Luffy to sleep"? Has this episode description "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself"? Pomte 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew that Wikipedia pages had to be the subject of reveiws, only the subject that the page is about. And the pages will be improved if they are kept... the only way to make them worse would be to put them back as dub reviews. (Justyn 02:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, I'm not saying keep or delete because I don't have a definite stance. So are the arcs themselves notable enough to detail every plotline scene-by-scene? At brief glance it looks to me that the arc names are not official and merely fan-made descriptions. What's so bad about brief, concise summaries? That's how official sites would describe episodes anyway, and they're a lot easier to maintain. Practically, what's the use of all this information? Someone might forget a minute detail in an episode and want to confirm it quickly, someone mean can skim the spoilers to paste to spite a friend, but that's it. No one unfamiliar with the show is going to spoil it for themselves, and if you're crazy about this show you're probably going to read dialogue/discussion/interpretation instead of a neutral description. It was argued elsewhere that this belongs in a One Piece specific wiki where fans can add all the trivia they want. Pomte 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Christ, stop your bitching.

• Comment Also, FredOrAlive, the individual saga pages are great. Please don't screw things up with your stupid ideas, Wikipedia elitist. Thanks.

• Redirect all to List of One Piece story arcs. Current articles clearly are against the spirit of WP:NOT. Pascal.Tesson 00:26, 30 January 2007 (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.