Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Akatsuki members

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. The issue raised by this article's nomination at AfD was the lack of independent citable sources. At no point in this debate have I seen the opposition saying they have reliable third party sources. Please remember that AfD is not a vote, which means I discounted many of the ILIKEIT votes. The primary argument for deletion was the lack of sources, and the community replied with poor rationales for keeping. ^demon[omg plz] 15:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can restore to userspace if the information needs merging elsewhere, which seemed to be raised as an issue as well. ^demon[omg plz] 15:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Akatsuki members

edit
List of Akatsuki members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Wikipedia articles should be compiled from information that is independent of the topic. The information in this list is from the topic itself, namely from the pages of the Naruto manga print cartoon. If no third-party reliable source cared enough to publish this information, why should Wikipedia? Wikipedia:Notability guideline requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject, including the Naruto manga series. The topic fails Wikipedia:Notability. In addition, the article also fails as a list, such as not including unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources per Criteria for inclusion in lists. An AfD that links to "List of Akatsuki members" and appears relevant to this discussion is Akatsuki leader AfD -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability CAN be inherited, as in the case of a sub-article of a larger subject. This is exactly that. Get back to me when you're not just dumping a wikilink but are actually considering applying an argument applicable to the subject at hand. Or at least, looking at the argument you're linking to, which actually covers this issue. Or did you not notice? FrozenPurpleCube 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notablility is never inherited. There is no such thing as a "sub-article". Articles must be able to stand alone on thier merits. As the article I linked says, "If it really is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that." --Phirazo 19:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the essay you linked also says "Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes," which is clearly the point of this list. Do you have an argument as to why the membership of this organization shouldn't be covered in some form on Wikipedia? FrozenPurpleCube 23:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the membership should be covered - in a list of just names in Akatsuki (Naruto), not in a stand-alone article. There is no reason it should be covered in this depth when there are no reliable secondary sources about any of this. --Phirazo 19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to suggest a shallower depth, however, given that there *is* information about the members of the Akatsuku, I think it's hardly unreasonable to say that more should be provided than just a list of names. That would be removing content for no good reason. If you want to go with the decision below to merge the article back up, I'm not opposed to the idea, it might work. FrozenPurpleCube 03:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is a FA, not a list, and is significantly different from List of Metal Gear Solid characters. The former covers the characters as a whole rather than the characters themselves, while the latter is actually a list. Both, however, are indeed excellent templates for such articles. The essential problem here is that there has been little to no third party publications concerning the Akatsuki members, especially considering that many of them have been recently introduced. There also has been hardly any reception that I have seen save the popularity polls that are included in the article, which by themselves do not constitute notability. Furthermore, the creator of these characters, Kishimoto, has released little to no information on the design or conception of these characters. As such, this article ultimately cannot pass WP:FICT. The aforementioned two articles do due to the presence of the above information, and it is thus suitable for them to have their own articles. For this article, we cannot bank on future notability (WP:CRYSTAL), nor make our own conclusions from available information (WP:NOR). If I am incorrect, and such information does exist, then this article should definitely be cleaned up and written in an out-of-universe tone as per WP:WAF with the relevant information. As it is now, however, a deletion or merger would be proper. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That would explain why it wasn't included in the list of featured lists, though its structure is still very similar to that of a generic list of characters (conception and reception excluded). The purpose of my comment, however, was to refute the nom's claims that an article must be drenched in third-party sources to be considered Wikipedia-worthy; I am well aware of this article's other faults. As such, I'm working on recombining this article with Akatsuki (Naruto), condensing the information to the bare-essentials, putting an out-of-universe spin on it, and actually sourcing the information. Once that's done I'll see what can be found in terms of third-party stuff. ~SnapperTo 17:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! If we lose this, it will make everything less encyclopedic. Jazz Band Member 19:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC) — Jazz Band Member (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But considering how large the Naruto cast is, its easier and dare I say more encyclopediac to sort them out accordingly.--TheUltimate3 19:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They're not their own articles, so I'm happy. List of Characters, done properly, are beneficial. This one could use some formatting and trimming, but it's ok. i said 20:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please, stop brandishing your guidelines like the deadly encyclopedic weapons they are not. Other than that, there's essentially no reason this article should be deleted - particularly noting it has already been condensed to a list and acts as a sub-article "for formatting and display purposes". Would you accordingly go about deleting all the plot summaries and character biographies of other articles as well? Then think before you apply. 76.10.151.209 23:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Refer to WP:IAR. This policy clearly shows that we gotta ignore all the rules to improve the standard of Wikpedia, particularly the Naruto articles. After all, this is an encyclopaedia to inform others, not to be a 'rulebook'. Omghgomg 04:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How do plot summaries unreferenced outside the primary source make Wikipedia a better encylopedia? If you are going to invoke WP:IAR, you need to explain how it makes the encylopedia better. --Phirazo 18:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Well, I guess that the article inform members of the audience that how these characters influence the continuing plotline of Naruto. Hope that made sense. If not, leave a comment and I'll try to explain it a bit more. =) Omghgomg 07:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we don't have a list of members then we don't need the organization. If we don't have the organization that drives the series, then we don't even need the series, and if we don't have articles about everything possible for anyone to be informed about any possible thing then we are communists. How are we communists? We would be communists because a free encyclopedia with free articles except some are more free/equal than others doesn't sound communist to you then you must be a hippie. Now that the pun is out of the way, the wikipedian policy for controversial mergers/deletions is for supermajority to take over. In order for this article to be deleted, 60%-80% need to agree on deletion. so far we have 15 people, 12 keep, 2 deletions, and 1 merge. 13.3% agree to deletion which is hardly enough to warant a deletion. [Too lazy to loggin-Kasokaix]--172.129.101.84 06:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC) — 172.129.101.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Recall that Wikipedia is not a democracy. To determine consensus, administrators do not (or should not rather) count votes to determine what consensus is. To be frank, no argument has really refuted Jreferee's argument thus far, and as it stands, those are proper grounds for deletion. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem, I refute, or at least dispute, his claims. There are plenty of books on Naruto. The show itself is absolutely notable. It stands to reason that if the Akatsuki is significant within Naruto (not being disputed here so far as I can tell), then its members can be identified, perhaps through some of those existing books. I noted one above. And that even assumes that somehow one is required to seek third-party sources. I feel the actual work of fiction is quite adequate for many things, including being the source of a lot of information. Do we need a third-party source to tell us Luke Skywalker became a Jedi? That his father was Anakin Skywalker who became Darth Vader? No, we don't. Do we need one to tell us that Luke's Lightsaber was green? Vader's was red? Nope. Now a third-party source that describes his story as being a version of Jesus Christ, yes, or Campbell's Hero's Journey. But those are secondary concerns that fall far short of the purpose of an article on Luke Skywalker. Which is to tell us who *he* is. Not what other people think he is. A similar principle applies here. Anyway, while you may not agree with the positions here, any admin who didn't look at it, and see the potential support existing here would be well-advised to consider whether consensus is in support of the nominator or not. I don't see very much of it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that the show itself could not provide sources to supplement the article. By all means, such references are ultimately necessary. However, if the only verifiable sources that the article has are the source material itself, then it fails Wikipedia's notability guideline. And yes, a majority is indeed in favor of keeping it right now. However, many of them have no argument beyond "these characters are important" or that it makes Wikipedia less "encyclopedic," and I'm referring to those arguments that should be disregarded by a closing administrator. After reviewing the deletion policy concerning minor characters, however, such treatment in a list is preferable to them having multiple articles. Keep or merge into Akatsuki (Naruto). Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The closer of this MfD should follow Deciding whether to delete. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This anime has run hundreds of epidodes with hundreds of characters. To amalgamate them would be ignoring the need to create a easily viewed article. Delete them if they get their own articles, but as a list, it is inconvenient to have them elsewhere MagiMika 11:46 26 August 2007 (GMT) — MagiMika (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - The Akatsuki play a major role in Naruto, as do hollows and shinigami in Bleach. Since the members, excluding Itachi Uchiha, are not notable enough to warrant their own articles, we made a list for them. Merging them into a list of villains in the series might be considered reasonable, but deleted it is simply ludicrous. // DecaimientoPoético 15:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per standing deletion policy about minor character, which is still in effect. Though whether the characters are minor or major is arguable, the articles does follow deletion policy as far as the treatment of minor characters is concerned. --Farix (Talk) 18:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete important though the main topic may be, this much attention to the details of individual characters careers would be appropriate only for the really major characters of the story. I admit I don't know the series, but if I understand the article right, this entire list is only one of the story lines. Considering that one of them is called "unnamed member," I rather doubt the importance of them all. Possibly include them all in the article for the clan, if that is the right term. DGG (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In order to have the series of articles about Naruto make sense as a whole, you need to have this one. 18:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.225.122.253 (talk)
  • DELETE The akatsuki stated they didn't need wikipedia, so wikipedia doesn't need them. Wikipedia is not a democracy we can delete the character page if we want-TheNarutoKing -- 67.140.54.49 (talk · contribs · logs) 14:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC). KEEP chicolambre other wise known as Uzumaiki Naruto Keep the akaski character page! 67.140.54.49 (talk · contribs · logs) 14:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC). KEEP DO NOT DELETE! 67.140.54.49 (talk · contribs · logs) 14:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC). Delete I have to agree with the minority. Do the akatsuki really need a member's page? No, ecspecially since some of the Konoha nine don't have their own pages. Just mention them in the main article. 67.140.54.49 (talk · contribs · logs) 19:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC) — 67.140.54.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The above was added by one anon, in two places in the AfD. This might be vandalism, but I'll leave it in anyway. --Phirazo 19:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The two deletes featured above were made by the same anon after a few attempts to alter the comments of others. ~SnapperTo 20:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The Akatsuki stated they didn't need wiki? That makes it sound like the Akatsuki members actually said that. Jazz Band Member 20:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment 67.140.54.49 has been blocked to allow this AfD to proceed unvandalized. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, yo Some of us need like, information about the characters and stuff. There'd be no Naruto without the Akatsuki. 24.161.46.132 22:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)MalfunctioningMalfoy — 24.161.46.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Akatsuki are the main focus of Shippuden/Part 2 and continue to be the main focus. Each of their dead members has left some sort of lasting impression on the Naruto world as a whole. I think its an extreme disservice to what they mean to Naruto to relegate them to a page full of other villains. I can see merging this back with the Akatsuki organization page, but the members should not be merged with other villains. -- 66.229.88.52 22:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC) — 66.229.88.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seeing as this doesn't help my arguement at Itachi's page I have to say that I know knowing the story doesn't help but if the nominators and the fellow deleters should read up on the story of the manga to understand that these aren't minor characters as many seem to think they are.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 00:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hardly think that most (if any) of the Akatsuki members are major characters. Major character implies that they have received significant coverage by the source material for a large period of time (or perhaps its entire continuity). Many of the Rookie Nine have received much more coverage than many of the Akatsuki members, and are understood to be minor characters. Akatsuki as a whole is considered major rather than the individual members that compromise it. The members thus far are featured prominently for a short period and subsequently dropped, or otherwise fade into obscurity. Itachi is the only one that really goes somewhat beyond this, but that is questionable. Yes, the individual members could receive much more coverage in the future, but we're not here to speculate on that. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But the Akatsuki members are the main evil dudes, and that makes them at least major. Jazz Band Member 11:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, the organization as a whole is notable. The individual members (excluding the current dispute over Itachi Uchiha) are minor. Merging is appropriate into the main article. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sasori and Deidara did more and have more backstory than most of the Rookie 9. Kakuzu and Hidan didn't but they encompassed one of the largest, if not the largest arc in the series. If all the Konoha Teams can be placed in their own page, I don't see why the Akatsuki members can't get their own or just be merged back with the organization page. After all, the Akatsuki is nothing without the members and thus I don't think its right to give the organization its own page and then put the members on some random villain list.. 66.229.88.52 16:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm clarifying that they are not major characters. My point with the Rookie Nine characters is that everyone besides Naruto, Sakura, and Sasuke are considered more or less minor, while many of them have received more coverage than practically every other Akatsuki member. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut and merge to an appropriate parent article, I don't see and can't find any indication that this part of the fictional work is on its own notable. Just because a fictional work is notable doesn't mean every piece of it is, this organization can be mentioned briefly in the plot summary of the parent article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge into Akatsuki (Naruto). I know that it already broke off of Akatsuki's article, but it can fit back in if it is heavily condensed. Cut the plot aside from background, keep abilities and personality in a brief blurb that is as condensed as possible. Oh, and cut the stats under each character's header. You Can't See Me! 03:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subtopics are perfectly acceptable when the content becomes too large. Though the content could be trimmed down, I wonder if it would be by enough. Regardless, a merge would require it being kept anyway. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Akatsuki is a crucial part of the plot of Naruto. In order for an unfamiliar reader to gain any reasonable understanding of Akatsuki as a whole, they need to understand the characters that make up the organisation. That make this article entirely necessary in order for the Akatsuki article to be at all encyclopaedic. 121.44.245.55 09:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC) — 121.44.245.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we don't have a list of members then we don't need the organization. If we don't have the organization that drives the series, then we don't even need the series, and if we don't have articles about everything possible for anyone to be informed about any possible thing then we are communists. How are we communists? We would be communists because a free encyclopedia with free articles except some are more free/equal than others doesn't sound communist to you then you must be a hippie... 172.129.101.84 => ^_^ Hu, that's guy is right ! --Mrpouetpouet 20:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So what if you think he/she is right? Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is the quality of the argument, not the quantity. Omghgomg 10:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, yeah I just found that very funny ^^ I can only agree with Jreferee, there isn't no independant source about akatsuki's members. However it's a problem that can be noted with most of articles about manga's characters... But in that case it concerns :"2 649 ± 8% 0.0264% 24. List of Akatsuki members"; I really enjoyed reading this article several times ^_^. That's why it seems me cleverer too keep it waiting for devloppement of the manga and independant sources than to delete this article that isn't that bad. (Thus it exists a few independant sources about akatsuki in japenese ;) --Mrpouetpouet 18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC) PS Akatsuki is a crucial part of the plot of Naruto That's right. Akatsuki's members are major charaters of the second part, several ones are still misterious, that's true; however do not forget that that "season" hasn't been completed yet ;)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Akatsuki members themselves (excluding Itachi) can be considered minor characters of a major work, and as such a list is not unreasonable. Although, I do think that the information should be condensed and possibly re-written (in either keep or merge), as most of the information given seems like it's been tacked on piece by piece rather than written as a whole. Ansalo 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless minor characters in akatsuki (not minor members) are trimmed, in that case merge. The reason why it was splited out before is that the entire list is too long, and even with all our current edits, it may be so. In any case, Itachi is certainly a keeper, but Sasori is not (only one arc). As Deidara is dead, from what i know, he is just there for comic relief. Hidan is only interesting because he is not dead and killed Asuma, while his partner (I even forgot his name -_-; ) is just as worthless (just another villian). I will err on Tobi and Pein, as they are the leaders of Akatsuki. Still, as I said, by the time we can trim enough to merge it, it would still be too long.George Leung 09:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWhy would anyone want to delete this page?? This page is very informative on the members of the Akatsuki.I would hate it if i was looking for the Akatskui page for inromation, and it was deleted. -- notshortbutchibi 710:11, 28 Agaust 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepI like this list better than if each member has their own pages, its more organized. Third party sources have indeed compiled info on the organization, just they are not very notable. I suggest at least merging this article with Akatsuki (naruto) if we cannot keep this page 65.33.155.10 01:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per AfD: Chess Pieces (MÄR). The only difference here is that the characters were split off from the main article because it got too long, this is understandable because Naruto is obviously a lot longer, more indepth and popular than MÄR is. You might as well merge List of Major Konoha teams back into the main List of Konoha Ninja article, followed by merging that into the Konoha article itself. - The Norse 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Come on, I can see that some other members don't know about supermajority, but the admins? Supermajority is in fact the policy of Wikipedia. It is used in controversial mergers and deletions like this. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but Supermajority is wikipedian policy. Look it up if you don't believe me. To be deleted, this article must have a consensus towards deletion, however This is very controversial and consensus will not be reached. While a good portion of arguements are against wikipedian policies, most are legitamite arguements. I'd also like to state that simply saying that they aren't major is kind of pointless as not all members are, the organization is major and a few of the members are still being debated about that very subject. 172.162.61.144 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable per this magazine. Incidentally, I have yet to not see this magazine in a supermarket - I am just be limited to supermarkets in the continental US, though.KrytenKoro —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrytenKoro (talk • contribs) 04:11, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete the page of the Akatsuki members? This makes about as much sense as deleting the page of Organization XIII from Kingdom Hearts II or the Empire from Star Wars. These are the MAIN VILLIANS of Naruto II we're talking about here. If Orochimaru has his own page, seeing that he was the villian of most of Naruto's first part, this these guys should have their own as well. Read most of the manga, and you could see WHO killed Gaara to take his beast, WHO killed Amaru, etc. Suggestion, instead of wiping out this article, how about you cut and merge this one with the Akatsuki, and keep the important info of the members? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroGiga (talk • contribs) 08:38, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Although many of the characters themselves are minor, Akatsuki as a whole are a major part as the antagonists of the series. Their philosophy of being a ninja are against everything stood for by the major villages, including Leaf and Sand, and their actions are intent towards the destruction of life as the protagonists know it. The article should be better organized regarding the characters, basing around their personality and their position in the story (Sasori: village destroyer, Chiyo's grandson; Hidan: motivates Shikamaru to action after killing his sensei Asuma, etc) At the same time, the article for Itachi Uchiha should also be kept seperate from the other Akatsuki outside links, due to his connection not only with the organization but due to his connection with many of the actions in the Leaf village. The revenge of the destruction of the clan, connected with side protagonist Sasuke Uchiha, is a major revolving plot of the series and I do believe there is enough information involving Itachi's character both now and in the future that merits him an article unconnected to the rest of the Akatsuki characters, particularly since he is the Leaf representative in the organization and the driving character not only for Sasuke but also for Naruto and other characters in the village. -StrangerAtaru 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Naruto, which I had never heard of, is in the top 10 of Wikipedia pages visited for August. It has consistently been in the top 100 for several months (all those I checked). This indicates to me that it is an extraordinarily popular topic. An article on any work of fiction would be expected to include information about characters and organizations in the story. However, when that, and the other information in the article, gets to be too long it has been our standard practice to 'split out' sections into separate articles. I do not agree that those 'sub articles' inherit no 'notability' from the primary topic... given that they are just parts of that primary article which have been re-located for page size reasons. Otherwise, we are encouraging people to place the exact same info back into the 'Naruto' article (and doing likewise for all fictional topics) to 'protect' it from deletion. Wikipedia is not paper. We have room to create sub-articles to help in logically organizing a topic... and we shouldn't re-imagine our deletion procedures to dissuade users from following those good article organization practices. If this info were in the Naruto article it would be kept. Possibly rewritten for clarity, brevity, and significance but absolutely and unquestionably kept. Not keeping it when it has been split out accomplishes nothing except undermining good article design. --CBD 18:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:SS and because this page is needed to understand the complex plot and structure of Naruto. - Peregrine Fisher 21:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Akatsuki is a major villain in Naruto, and therefore there should be a page that tends to Akatsuki individually, including it's members, since Akatsuki is not a minor villain and has alot to do with the whole plot of Naruto and Naruto: Shippuden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handro3 (talk • contribs) 22:26, August 29, 2007 (UTC) — Handro3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - things are getting sort of confused here. The list of Akatsuki members is certainly worth having, but as part of the main Akatsuki page. I don't think it needs to be split off into its own article like this. Doceirias 03:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's not Wikipedia policy, as there are both people with that position, and people who don't interpret things that way. It's still an ongoing matter, at least as regards fiction. FrozenPurpleCube 04:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So some articles are immune to WP:PLOT because they are "sub-articles"? News to me. --Phirazo 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's more because of WP:CONSENSUS actually. FrozenPurpleCube 13:16, 30 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Akatsuki_members&oldid=1144703351"