Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power level (Dragon Ball) (second nomination)

Power level (Dragon Ball)

Original research synthesis on a concept from the Dragon Ball universe. No information drawn from reliable sources of any kind, as far as I can tell. --Slowking Man 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. So much original research that nothing on the article can even verify that the subject actually exists in any form. Also, the list of all power levels in the series is completely unnecessary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Wikipedia is not an anime guide on obscure, unverified concepts.--TBCΦtalk? 03:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If some independant, fact-checked sources on the subject could be found, I would support stripping this down to a sourced stub, as from my limited understanding, the relative power levels of the characters are important to the customiseable card game and at least the early seasons of the DBZ anime (about a screen's worth, all of which must be sourced). Failing someone with the required interest willing to step up and do that, delete. -- saberwyn 04:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Also, since the power levels stop after a while, it really isn't possible to expand the article--SUIT 05:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete There is no reason to delete this article the concept of ki scouters and power levels is a key part of Dragonball Z all the power levels are from reliable sources just because the power levels stop later in the series doesn't mean its not important. no reason to delete this. DBZROCKS 12:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unverified research. That's a VERY good reason. And from what I hear, Daizenshū's power levels didn't have any input from Bird Studio or TOEI. Most of the content is guide content, and the other content is original research that no one seems to be interested in verifying. Hell, does anything on the article even show that the subject is real in Dragon Ball? No - not a single link, not a single source. None of the images even verify it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primarily due to OR concerns, although Wikipedia isn't an anime guide, just like it's not a game guide. Arkyan 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I can't believe I'm defending Dragon Ball. The concept is important enough to Dragon Ball to warrant a seperate article. The article implies there's an "official" book detailing this stuff, and the other information is taken from the manga or anime directly. Therefore, I think the article is sourceable and the OR can be gotten rid off, and the speculation can be hacked out. It's a cleanup case, not a delete case, let's give the kiddies a chance to fix it. And while I just know that this doesn't describe anyone around here, just as a note, let's not let personal dislike for the series taint our judgment, mmmkay? Or personal like, for that matter. --UsaSatsui 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's nonsense. Acalamari 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it nonsense? its part of Dragonball Z its not a fan made term Akira Toriyama put it in there. So what if the Daizenshu didn't consult Toei or Bird Studio they didn't create dragonball Akira Toriyama did. DBZROCKS 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not every anime term warrants an article, you know. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes that is true but this one does, there is no reason for this to be deleted it has the right information and has many other articles merged in. It just needs a bit of a tune up thats all. DBZROCKS 21:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why does this one warrant an article? Most of it is a guide. Can you give me a single reason why it is necessary that it has an article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Its not a guide its half list and half article thats all. Its necesary because
        
        1.its an important dragonball Z concept
        
        2.Its not just on power levels it also has scouters and Ki/Chi mixed in
        
        3.Its not overrun with fancruft or anything its a perfectally good article.
        
        4.Is there any reason to delete it?
        
        we could easily fix up the article instead of just deleting it. DBZROCKS 21:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It is a guide. It is an anime guide on power levels. The rest of the content is original research. This has been at the AfD four times - first time it was deleted, but someone revived it without going through deletion review.
        
        1. It's not important. It's just a detailed description of characters' powers. Is it necessary for us to know that some character has a power level of NINE THOUUUUUSAAAAAAND?
        
        2. The Dragon Ball article can cover ki/chi.
        
        3. It's not? 100% original research and anime guide cruft.
        
        4. Yes. 100% original research and anime guide cruft. That's a GREAT reason to delete. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Its not all original research just look at the scouter part. Why would the Dragonball article cover Chi/KI its huge already KI/chi deserves its own page we just need to delete the fancruft. DBZROCKS 21:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh? I don't see many sources to make it not original research. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Many articles don't have sources but are still fine just look at Future Trunks. Anywhay the Daizenshu could be considered a source. DBZROCKS 21:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Only for content that's going to be deleted, article kept or deleted. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What do you mean deleted? the list of Power levels is just fine. DBZROCKS 21:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Because it's guide content. Have you ever explained why it is necessary to know every single powere ever recorded in the entire series? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thats like saiying why its nesesary to list all the pokemon but we have them all listed. Its not like its listing any power levels that were not stated in the manga. DBZROCKS 21:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How are numbers more important than "characters" in a very popular franchise? Just give it up. You're just grasping for straws at this point. There are no possible references beyond basic "ki=energy=pl" things. Nemu 21:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        what? I never said they were more important than the charecters. But they are important. They measure a charecter's power. Also its not just numbers it has scouters and Ki in there too! DBZROCKS 21:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        They are not important in the least. They're just a plot thing to show who's stronger than who used for one and a half arcs/sagas. The rest is unimportant also, and can be cut and placed elsewhere. Nemu 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok so they may not be uber important but can't we just list them delete the repeditive stuff expand the scouter section and call it a reborn article? DBZROCKS 22:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Also, if power levels are important, does that also mean that the base stats of each Pokémon are too? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        don't take this personally but thats just rediculus base stats of pokemon are completely random. There are 400-something pokemon but there are only 40 or so power levels max stated in dragonball. thats a huge difference. DBZROCKS 22:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        They are not random. A Pikachu at level 1 has the same base stats as another Pikachu at level 1. The sun setting is about as random as Pokémon base stats. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page is fairly pointless. It seems to just be various paragraphs restating information in slightly different ways. One relevent paragraph can just be salvaged and merged elsewhere. Nemu 21:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- merged to where? we have no article like this anywhere else. DBZROCKS 21:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm, I don't know, how about the giant attack page that we have? Nemu 21:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know but that page is seriously out of control and its a list of attacks not an article explaining Ki. NOt all attacks use Ki/Chi. we seriously should just keep the article and fix it maybe add a couple of sources. DBZROCKS 21:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]