Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muten Roshi

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 to delete, but article needs sources. Can be merged at editorial discretion. Chick Bowen 01:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muten Roshi

Delete - article does not assert WP:NOTE, violates WP:NEU, has too much WP:OR information, and has been unreferenced since its creation. While the character did play active roles in a lot of the first portion of Dragon Ball, he continued to appear mostly as comic relief throughout the rest of the series, including DBZ and very rarely in DBGT. I really don't see how WP:WAF can save this page since Roshi became very minour (even moreso than Bulma) as the story expanded, as he is reduced to no less than a 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) 03:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep- guy was a major character in the first 13 books or so of a comic series that sold hundreds of millions of copies. Does this need a clean up? Yes. But this guy is notable. JJJ999 06:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Second look, this is a great article, how the hell can you nominate this for deletion?JJJ999 06:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This guy is in almost a lot of sagas, and his house, Kame House, is one of the most famous places on the Dragon Ball Universe. TyrannoRanger 12:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The delete nomination for this is just so strange... is there going to be a defence of it?JJJ999 15:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 10:08, 20 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. Muten Roshi has had no confirmed sources for much more than four years, therefore, such an unsourced page should be deleted per policy. Thank you, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a disgusting addition by LS, because he is the guy who has not reasoned it. A routine google search could confirm all this, the page need referencing, sure, but it's hardly delete worthy. "Muten Roshi" returns 25,000 hits, "Master Roshi" returns 98,700 hits and Roshi plus DBZ returns about 150,000 hits. The noteworthiness here is self evident. First LS implies Roshi was a "minor character", then when the merest of efforts shows he's wrong, he claims the page is "not referenced"? Well, reference it then, but this guys is vastly more prominent than alot of fictional characters I could think of, a man who was a star for 13 books, and a background mentor/comic figure for the remaining 29, is hardly unimportant, in light of the selling power of this franchise. JJJ999 04:40, 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]
Comment - JJJ999, there is not enough (if any) out-of-universe information for Roshi and that external link you provided has nothing to do with him, save for being a ref for Dragon Ball. And Jay32183 told you this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulma, 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 Muten Roshi, then I wouldn't have begun this afd in the first place. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:20, 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]
Merge Into a list of Human Dragon Ball Characters. I'd definitely rather not see this deleted. FamicomJL 22:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once again this applies, to your problem with sources. 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. This nominators use of colored boxes in his nominations is very unnecessary, and rude. Finally, saying that real world sources do not exist is completely insane. Viperix 01:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cleanup or merge, What I said for Bulma works here too: clean it up, see what we're left with, and then evaluate a merge. Dragon Ball has been around for a while, and Roshi is a main character in the original series, which makes me think that real-world information is likely to be found. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 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.