Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Super Mario-kun chapters
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 merge to Super Mario-kun. Black Kite (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of Super Mario-kun chapters[edit]
- List of Super Mario-kun chapters (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)
I feel this falls cleanly into the realm of unnessecary lists of information. I do not think listing the individual chapters just for the sake of listing them to be beneficial to the encyclopdia; this is basically just copying the directory found on the source site without any additional information; a simple link to the chapter list in the manga's main article is more than sufficient. An IP editor contested the PROD without giving any reason. Salvidrim! 19:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keepbut cleanup. While the IP editor contested it without a reason, this list is informative. This nomination is not a substitute for cleanup. Needs renaming and restructuring, as Mariowiki.com does a better job than this. --George Ho (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Should be "volumes", not "chapters", by the way. Probably summarize the whole volume to replace list of chapters? --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not saying this article should be "fixed" or cleaned up, I am saying I see no reason for this list of trivial information to exist. I am well aware of the oft-repeated maxim "AfD is not cleanup", but I do not think the issue here is the format or the contents of the article, but its existence. I will however agree with you that such material is perfectly suitable, and even beneficial, to MarioWiki. I consider this "List of chapters" (or volumes, or whichever) to be akin to a "List of Minigames" in an article about one of the Mario Party games; the subject itself is notable but listing a directory of information like this seems unnessecary and superfluous, especially when such content is not especially useful to the reader as it is not discussed in any article, at all. Salvidrim! 02:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for now. I wish there is another way to have this article keep, but even adding the plot won't matter that much, unless real-world commentary is needed. Seriously, the manga is Japanese, and reviews about them may be in Japanese, as well. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a small article is the issue here, notability cant reflect onto a chapter list. I think more needs to be improved on the main article before another article can be made of the subject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for now. I wish there is another way to have this article keep, but even adding the plot won't matter that much, unless real-world commentary is needed. Seriously, the manga is Japanese, and reviews about them may be in Japanese, as well. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not saying this article should be "fixed" or cleaned up, I am saying I see no reason for this list of trivial information to exist. I am well aware of the oft-repeated maxim "AfD is not cleanup", but I do not think the issue here is the format or the contents of the article, but its existence. I will however agree with you that such material is perfectly suitable, and even beneficial, to MarioWiki. I consider this "List of chapters" (or volumes, or whichever) to be akin to a "List of Minigames" in an article about one of the Mario Party games; the subject itself is notable but listing a directory of information like this seems unnessecary and superfluous, especially when such content is not especially useful to the reader as it is not discussed in any article, at all. Salvidrim! 02:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be "volumes", not "chapters", by the way. Probably summarize the whole volume to replace list of chapters? --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak keep - Turns out there is an article Super Mario-kun however it is currently a stub, have reliable sources been checked for this list? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the Super Mario-kun article; I've worked on it; the fact the subject is notable doesn't necessarily mean that a list of all of its chapters/volumes is needed or beneficial. Salvidrim! 17:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck my opinion then, I am going with Delete based on it's notability issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable, trivial list. I agree with everything Salvidrim is saying, this is the type of thing that would belong at mariowiki at best, not here. Beyond that, there's very little of value here for the average english reader, two thirds of it is in Japanese, and the remaining third are direct english translations that are broken and read very awkwardly. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Perfectly vaild WP:SPINOUT per WP:MOS-AM, widely used and long-recognized. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Have you really read over WP:SPINOUT? That's more applicable to splitting up long articles. (You'll note that in the opening sententence of the link you supplied, it says "When you split a section from a long article into an independent article...") Have you checked the parent article at Super Mario-kun? It's is not long by any stretch of the imagination. I feel more like WP:CONTENTFORK (which are frowned upon), if anything would be more applicable here. (A relatively trivial fact may be appropriate in the context of the larger article, but inappropriate as the topic of an entire article in itself.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Since the parent article's so short anyway (a stub), I think the best thing to do is not a total deletion, but rather the merging of the list (table) into the parent article. It's not like the article for Super Mario-kun is so long that the chapters list needs to be split off. Of course, the parent article needs to be improved first and expanded. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont think a merge of unferenced material into the main article is a good idea. There are two references at the top of the article but they are borrowed from the main page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Super Mario-kun. It's not like the article is that long anyway, and total deletion would not be necessary in this case, especially as it lists the chapters. CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 10:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:IINFO. A list of chapters in a continuing manga doesn't make for good encyclopedic content. If it doesn't exist at mariowiki it probably should. If it does exist then WP:NOTMIRROR--Joshuaism (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2012 (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.