Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naruto Uzumaki

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 a clear consensus to keep and improve. Non-admin close. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Uzumaki

This article seems to be basically fancruft. IMHO, it (and the separate pages for other characters) should be deleted or merged with the main page. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - not a valid reason for deletion, a lot of the content is sourced and there is in-universe/out-of-universe data placed. I also find this badly-made nomination suspicious. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I totally support Sesshomaru. The in-universe info is totally reduced.Tintor2 (talk • edits) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has a little too much plot and in-universe information that needs to be pared down (and has been tagged as such). However, it has more than enough out-of-universe information and real world data to support the character having notability. Collectonian (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - asserts its notability to satisfy WP:FICT. Poorly written content or significant amounts of in-universe content (much of which should be there anyway) is not a rationale for deletion, but rather for cleanup. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep has out-of-universe info. It's got enough information to satisfy WP:FICT. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Out-of-universe notability asserted. Further, look at the contributions of the nominator; I hate to assume bad faith but this looks to be a WP:POINT being made in retalliation to Warcraft articles being deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has more than enough sourced information to establish notability per the WP:FICT guidelines. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above, asserts notablity. Midorihana^{~いいですね？} 02:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How does this article assert notability out of universe? I'm not seeing it -- specifically, I'm not seeing any reliable third-party sources. Also, I do agree with the nom that this is an awfully crufty page -- although fancruft alone is no reason to delete. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps even speedy given the speciousness nature that this nomination is a retaliation over the deletion of several Warcraft articles.[1][2] But I see at least 3 different citations from reliable third-party sources that are independent of the publisher and the author of the series. Ideally, some of the plot sections should be cut back, but the character has demonstrated notability. --Farix (Talk) 02:38, 14 January 2008 (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.