Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Naruto characters/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was kept by Dabomb87 03:54, 10 September 2010 [1].
List of Naruto characters[edit]
List of Naruto characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured list removal candidates/List of Naruto characters/archive1
- Featured list removal candidates/List of Naruto characters/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it violates the policy WP:PRIMARY, which states that articles cannot be based only on primary sources. There is extremely little independent verification of the information included in this article - simply references to the anime/manga itself and amazon.com pages. This falls short of the requirements of WP:FL?. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All primary sources? There is a whole reception section with non-primary sources.Tintor2 (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one section out of five which has citations to independent sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria says to follow the Manual of Style and the anime/manga manual state we have to use primary sources to cite in-universe info.Tintor2 (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's a conflict between the MoS and WP:NOR then. I presume the instruction not to "base articles entirely on primary sources" is violated by an article which bases the main subject of the article (in-universe Naruto) on primary sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no conflict. Facts and events directly stated or displayed by a primary source can be cited to the primary source. WP:NOR simply states that any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims cannot be based on primary sources and requires a secondary, or third-party, source. Now if you can identify any specific analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims made in the article that isn't attributed to a third-party source, I'm sure that other editors will fix or remove them. However, your claimed reason for delisting, lack of third-party sources, has already been refuted by references 2–6 and 134—136. —Farix (t | c) 20:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's a conflict between the MoS and WP:NOR then. I presume the instruction not to "base articles entirely on primary sources" is violated by an article which bases the main subject of the article (in-universe Naruto) on primary sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria says to follow the Manual of Style and the anime/manga manual state we have to use primary sources to cite in-universe info.Tintor2 (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Close to per WP:SNOW. PRIMARY applies to the article as a whole, not specific sections.陣内Jinnai 04:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The editor who started this FLRC has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. —Farix (t | c) 11:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Close per WP:SNOW Blocked user and bad faith removal request. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.