Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus, after excluding the weak keep arguments. There is no consensus for a deletion so I cannot delete it. So this is an occasion to fix up the several issues that the article has.--JForget 23:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article does not assert WP:NOTE, violates WP:NEU, has too much WP:OR information, and has been unreferenced since its creation. While Bulma did play an active role in almost the whole first portion of Dragon Ball, she continued to appear briefly from time to time throughout DBZ and barely in DBGT, helping the Z Fighters whenever possible. I really don't see how WP:WAF can save this page since Bulma became very minour as the story expanded, she is reduced to nothing more than comic relief and as a mere background character.
Merge to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball at this time.I also ask that the comments given here be not limited to WP:ATA. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Certainly merge an abbreviation as per poster, but consider also transwiki to Wikia for Dragonball Z, if such exists; this page needs more expert help than the main encyclopedia can handle. Alba 04:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there certainly is a Dragon Ball wiki all set. Here is Bulma's page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Elmao 10:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Elmao please give a reason as to why you want to keep the article. Your thought may be disregarded in the end. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many pages confirming, including videos Elmao 03:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Elmao please give a reason as to why you want to keep the article. Your thought may be disregarded in the end. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Clean up. A google search gives several pages dealing with the character, her bio, fan fiction, fan art. Seems notable enough to me. The problems with the article style and quality of information also seem valid but deleting the article seems to be an overreaction. Why don't you trim the article down yourself if you are knowleadgeable about the character history? User:Dimadick
- Keep. Just because a major character in one series is no longer featured in a second series, doesn't mean she loses notability derived from the first. — PyTom (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Dimadick, you have to understand that trimming won't do a thing here because there is not enough real-life info. for the character. And no offense guys but can we lose the WP:ILIKEIT arguements? To those unaware, I'm not in favour in deleting the page but merging is better in this case in that we don't lose any of the information. And to answer Pytom, she appears frequently in Dragon Ball, but not really in Dragon Ball Z or Dragon Ball GT. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Bulma is an important character. Period. And again... Don't merge her into List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball. TyrannoRanger —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I told Elmao above, you will need to give a more legitimate reason TyrannoRanger. This statement alone won't give reasoning as to why the page should be kept. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There aren't real world sources so we can't keep. There's too much detail to merge. The logical transwiki target already has a detailed article. Deleting the article is the only thing to do. Jay32183 22:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can sum up at least a paragraph entry if the page were to be merged, not deleted. Then again, we could use the information from Dragon Ball wiki. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above. Noting that a character is demonstrably important to a show is a sufficient enough basis for urging its inclusion. Although the article needs sources, a quick glance at any search engine shows that sourcing is indeed possible. wikipediatrix 02:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not one of those sources contains any real world content. Importance to the plot does not matter at all. A significant character with no real world content does not get an article, while a minor character with plenty of real world content does. This is because Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries or a publisher of original thought. Verifiability through reliable sources is also required. This article cannot achieve that. Jay32183 04:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The servant of your namesake has an article IE Jaken. It has been tagged because of lack of sources and in universe writing. My point being the two articles are parallel in importance and notability. Neither should be deleted but both could use some sourcing and cleaning. Viperix 00:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those tags are not magic. If sources don't exist they can't be added. This isn't a matter of editors getting around to adding sources to the article, it's that the sources needed don't exist. Jay32183 19:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I never suggested they were magic. I am positive that sources exist and someone "in the know" could produce said sources. Bulma is notable both in DB and DBZ, not being notable in DBGT does not trump her previous notability. Exactly which real world sources do you suppose a fictional character has to have to be on wiki? or should all fictional things be deleted? Viperix 22:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those tags are not magic. If sources don't exist they can't be added. This isn't a matter of editors getting around to adding sources to the article, it's that the sources needed don't exist. Jay32183 19:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Are you out of your freaking mind? -- AvatarMN 21:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, what next? Delete Vegeta cuz he died in the Freeza Saga? ...I'd better not give you ideas. Superior1 23:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion reasoning isn't about Bulma's level of activity in the plot. It's the lack of sources to establish notability or provide real world content. Jay32183 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into list of human Dragon Ball characters. I don't agree with deleting the article, but merging it seems like a better idea to me. And maybe trimming it down FamicomJL 03:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSING SYSOP: Please ignore the keepers who do not give very legitimate reasons to keep the unreferenced page. As WP:VERIFY says, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". This is why Cross Epoch was deleted. Bulma has had no confirmed sources for more than four years, therefore, such an unsourced page should be deleted per policy. Thank you, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'd hope that the sysop doesn't give any special precedence to comments just because they're enclosed in a bright orange box. The last thing that's needed is for AfD to become a contest to see who's opinion can be made to stand out more visually. — PyTom (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. That is really, really, unecessary. FamicomJL 22:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the box. We routinely weigh arguments without the aid of colored boxes. Thanks.--Chaser - T 02:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'd hope that the sysop doesn't give any special precedence to comments just because they're enclosed in a bright orange box. The last thing that's needed is for AfD to become a contest to see who's opinion can be made to stand out more visually. — PyTom (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This guys keeps claiming he is a big DBZ fan, yet all his time is devoted to deleting their pages...STRONG KEEP, and much like the other page where you inserted this silly notice, I'll tell you why. DBZ was a huge franchise, searching for Bulma reveals huge ghit #'s, and as a main character she is entitled to her own page. Indeed, she is one of the only characters to appear in basically every book. Your motives for nominating all this pages is bizarre.JJJ999 04:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick good search reveals yet more to counter this silly deletion, "http://www.trannet-japan.com/ep/tjc_news_dtl.asp?dk=N0000010", 1 million copies sold in China on day 1 of release. Some websites I googled list hundreds of millions of copies sold, and billions in revenue... DBZ is the #1 Japanese Manga ever apparently, if characters from Harry Potter get pages, it is hard to understand why this guy, basically the equivalent of Dumbledore or McGonagall in terms of expose, wouldn't get one...JJJ999 05:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We aren't looking for sources on DragonBall, we need sources on Bulma for more than just plot information. The same is true for Harry Potter characters, but they aren't related to Bulma, so they would require a separate discussion if the articles are inappropriate. Jay32183 05:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The merest application of common sense would tell you these sources exist, the merest google search would do likewise. You're either part of the solution, or part of the problem. If you want to be the former, go put some footnotes in, its obvious you'd rather delete it than save yourself the trouble. Luckily nobody here agrees with you... did you have a grudge against the guy who made this page or something? I haven't seen one reason for removing this page, yet you've posted repeatedly on this...JJJ999 05:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We aren't looking for sources on DragonBall, we need sources on Bulma for more than just plot information. The same is true for Harry Potter characters, but they aren't related to Bulma, so they would require a separate discussion if the articles are inappropriate. Jay32183 05:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - JJJ999, there is not enough (if any) out-of-universe information for Bulma and that external link you provided has nothing to do with him, save for being a ref for Dragon Ball. Like Jay32183 told you, sources are needed for a character, regardless.
- And although I'm as big a Dragon Ball fan as everyone else at WP:WPDB, I don't like to see pages deleted, but this is for the best. If there were verified/reliable sources for Bulma, then I wouldn't have begun this afd in the first place. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In universe perspective is easily solved by editing, and it's disingenous to think this lacks notability outside of DBZ.JJJ999 06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no evidence that any sources exist for the editing you're talking about. You're attempt to find sources found no reliable sources, or sources that didn't have any real world information. It doesn't have to be notable beyond the Dragonball franchise, we have to have reliable information beyond a plot summary. I can't add citations because the sources don't exist. Jay32183 22:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:OR "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Also from WP:OR "Examples of primary sources include... ...scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." Finally also from WP:OR Secondary sources are only required when interpretation of the primary source was required. Editors seem to misuse the OR policy to get things deleted. OR should be renamed to Original Idea's or Original concepts, since that is what it blocks. This article does not present original thought, it is all verifiable through primary sources. Viperix 01:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mention WP:NOR. My argument is based on WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:N, and WP:FICT. Secondary sources are required for notability and articles cannot consist only of plot. Jay32183 05:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You did in your nomination, And just now in the above argument, saying sources do not exist. Viperix 10:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mention WP:NOR. My argument is based on WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:N, and WP:FICT. Secondary sources are required for notability and articles cannot consist only of plot. Jay32183 05:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:OR "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Also from WP:OR "Examples of primary sources include... ...scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." Finally also from WP:OR Secondary sources are only required when interpretation of the primary source was required. Editors seem to misuse the OR policy to get things deleted. OR should be renamed to Original Idea's or Original concepts, since that is what it blocks. This article does not present original thought, it is all verifiable through primary sources. Viperix 01:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone here should vote keep for Muten Roshi too, since he's used the exact same reasoning to afd that...JJJ999 02:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD's are not votes, they are discussions. The numbers don't matter. Jay32183 05:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor do shiny coloured boxes...JJJ999 05:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't me, and that was really more for you guys who are presenting terrible arguments than for the closing admin. Jay32183 17:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor do shiny coloured boxes...JJJ999 05:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD's are not votes, they are discussions. The numbers don't matter. Jay32183 05:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't exactly heard you criticising his obviously unecessary and guady attempt to win points, which btw is clearly addressed to the admins, and is of no help to us, we don't need a big sign to read what he says.JJJ999 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no evidence that any sources exist for the editing you're talking about. You're attempt to find sources found no reliable sources, or sources that didn't have any real world information. It doesn't have to be notable beyond the Dragonball franchise, we have to have reliable information beyond a plot summary. I can't add citations because the sources don't exist. Jay32183 22:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup or merge, as in, clean it up, see what we're left with, and then evaluate a merge. Dragon Ball has been around for a while, and Bulma is a key character in the original series, which makes me think that real-world information is likely to be found. -- Ned Scott 05:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Bulma has been a main character of three animated series and a long-running manga. I can see this as a useful fork from the main dragonball topics.--Torchwood Who? 07:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Ned Scott 05:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as article appears to cover a notable fictional character. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:44, 27 September 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.