Talk:Sarada Uchiha

Sarada Uchiha has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 24, 2017	Good article nominee	Listed
February 25, 2019	Good topic candidate	Promoted
October 22, 2019	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted

Current status: Good article

Anime and manga Low‑importance

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 19 November 2017.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 May 2016. The result of the discussion was redirect to List of Naruto characters#Sarada Uchiha.

Keeping the article[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When the article of Sarada Uchiha was nominated to deletion, me myself agreed to its merge because it failed to pass notability. However, I managed to find around 11 sources in one day with some of them also focused on the other traits and arcs of the character. I think she actually has more reception than Jiraiya (Naruto). Please discuss here before reverting the article.Tintor2 (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping User:Steve Quinn.Tintor2 (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the AFD (May 9, 2016), the Boruto manga series was just getting started (first chapter released May 9, 2016), so now it's been over a year, and there's even an anime series on it, as well as a million copies sold, and many more reviews critiquing the character in both the anime and manga. So with the reception beefed up, this should pass notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2:

The first several references are really not up to standards. Articles like this often have substandard sources, not really wp:rs. So, we will see. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to other Wikipedia articles in the references? These are not reliable sources. It is closer to a walled garden. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are the references WP:UNRELIABLE? -- 1989 03:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This tells me that you may not how notability and referencing work on Wikipedia. I'm not going to get into a discussion about Wikipedia articles referencing other Wikipedia articles, but this does not work, and would fail as acceptable sources in an AfD. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know how it works, I'm trying to wonder if you do. Your statements make no sense, if I link a publisher, that means it's unreliable? Did you read the whole references instead of the linked words? -- 1989 04:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1989 but, do you know that Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources? See this [1], and this [2]. I consider it odd to use Wikipedia articles in the references. But, I don't care if they are used here. They don't establish notability of this topic, and are more for background. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding wikilinks to a publisher or a media source in a footnote is not against policy. It's not supposed to be presented as a reliable source, and if you think that's the intention, you're wrong. -- 1989 05:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1989 I was going to post this to my talk page, but since you are here I am posting this here. I am willing to take it to AfD if necessary. But I would rather the article stand on its own merits. I have been through the first twenty references so far, and I am not sure about what I am seeing. This is what I mean by Fan website: [3], [4], and [5]. Are these really independent reliable sources, independent of the subject and so on?

I have to question the independence of this website as a source. There are other references that are linked to other Wikipedia articles. Then there are references that are books of fiction, like novels, but these don't qualify as reliable sources. These are a similar pattern that I have seen in other Anime articles. Being one editor I don't have the time to question or challenge a number of articles that I see in the Anime project. The articles tend to reflect what Anime websites have to say.---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- 1989 04:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what do you mean by yes. Can you elaborate? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Are these really independent reliable sources, independent of the subject and so on?" WP:A&M/I = Yes. -- 1989 04:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I will read through this and have to get back to you. I was thinking of doing this anyway, since I have seen a pattern in a number of Anime articles. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, I've looked over the list of sources and don't see any Wikipedia articles cited as sources. Where specifically do you seeing this? Secondly, Anime News Network has long been established as a reliable source at WT:ANIME and at WP:RSN and is generally considered the website of record for anime news. What evidence do you have to doubt the accuracy of ANN's coverage? You made the claim that it is not "independent". On what bases do you make that claim? Do you consider GameSpot, Kotaku, Polygon, IGN, etc. to be unreliable because they are online only sources? —Farix (t | c) 10:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded a bit more and I think reception is even bigger than the appearances section. However, if somebody has some sources to add, I'll add them later. Today is a busy day for me.Tintor2 (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references that link to Wikipedia articles are not how I set up references. I normally link to the book or the chapter. So it is not using Wikipedia as a reference per se, I am mistaken about that. It is linking book references to related Wikipedia articles rather then the book or chapter online, which to me is misleading. But, that is my take on it. Regarding the other stuff under discussion, it is going to take me a awhile to go over the relevant material and come back to this discussion.

So, in the meantime, I removed the notability tag. My initial perceptions might not be accurate or they might be accurate. At the RSN there has not been high turn out whenever Anime News Network was discussed, so I don't think the definitive answer on whether or not it is a reliable source is there. Over at RSN, it looks like 3 or 4 Anime Project member editors versus one editor who is not (something like that). I am wondering how this would be viewed as a source on a Wikipedia-wide scale.

But, right now I have no way of knowing. The low RSN turnouts are not convincing for me. At the same time, I am not going to challenge a whole WikiProject (Anime) as only one editor. But I am entitled to my view as long as I am not disruptive. And after sifting through all the relevant material over at the Anime Project, and in other places, my view might change. Regards. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sarada Uchiha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170906182539/http://www.anime-now.com/entry/2017/09/06/230036?utm_campaign=ANN to http://www.anime-now.com/entry/2017/09/06/230036
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170916010856/http://www.anime-now.com/entry/2017/09/15/230004?utm_campaign=ANN to http://www.anime-now.com/entry/2017/09/15/230004
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0514716/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]