Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 redirect to One Piece#Setting. The history is still there if anyone wants to merge some content Spartaz Humbug! 07:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Grand Line

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Grand Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG entirely in its current state, complete WP:ALLPLOT. I would suggest a redirection to One Piece#Setting. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Television, Video games, and Anime and manga. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's not just information about a location in the series, but it lists a long cast of recurring characters in the manga and its franchise, who shouldn't be in the List of One Piece characters article because for years there have been problems with the length of that page. Now, several users who have worked on it have been able to better classify the characters thanks to the creation of pages like this one. BrookTheHumming (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Another option, if the problem is that the title focuses on the location, could be to Rename the page as "List of One Piece characters from Grand Line", or something similar, to focus on the article's objective of listing the franchise's recurring characters. - BrookTheHumming (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, the primary setting of the best-selling comic series of all time clearly meets WP:GNG according to WP:NPOV. The WP:ALLPLOT concerns were valid, but no longer are since there is now a Reception section that includes reliable sources showing the impact of the worldbuilding in the Grand Line on manga more. This section should be improved and expanded upon. --Plumber (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    That seems like reception about the manga itself, rather than Grand Line specifically. I still cannot see this passing WP:GNG at all, to be frank. I will keep this AfD up to see if anyone agrees with me about that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:03, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    • The section can definitely be improved, but to delete an entire article about the main setting of a major work does not pass WP:NPOV, especially when another user already mentioned it was created via consensus to split an article that was over 30,000 words, more than twice the amount WP:Article size says "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed" --Plumber (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
      @Plumber @Zxcvbnm See my solution below. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
      This is another WP:VAGUEWAVE stance. You can't just exclaim WP:ITSNOTABLE and think everything is solved. What reliable, third party sourcing, is specifically covering "Grand Line" itself in significant detail that isn't a passing mention? Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
      Plenty. VFX Voice, The Digital Fix, CBR (I'm aware it's a Valnet source), Looper, ONE Esports. I think GNG is more than passed with this. 11WB (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
      Plenty? That's five, and according to consensus at WP:VG/S, Looper is unreliable, and CBR is situational and not a good indicator of notability. That leaves us with three websites I've never heard of and don't be appear to be evaluated for reliability anywhere I've checked... Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
      A quick Google search will present you with plenty of articles discussing Grand Line. Notability isn't an issue here. 11WB (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
      That's not how AFD works. You don't ask others to search for the sources you claim exist. Sergecross73 msg me 18:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
      As the sources I provided previously weren't suitable, I've found five more: Real Sound (reliable per A&M), Sohu 1 (reliable per zhwiki), Sohu 2, Image Text Journal (WP:SCHOLARSHIP), Crunchyroll (reliable per RS/N).
      Hopefully this puts notability concerns to bed! @Sergecross73 11WB (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
      'That's not how AFD works. You don't ask others to search for the sources you claim exist.' - I think you've twisted my reply there a bit. I said sources are easily accessible on Google, I didn't specifically request you to provide them here. 11WB (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
      Also a note for @Zxcvbnm as they are the nominator. There is no evidence of them having performed a WP:BEFORE. So to rebut Serge's point on "you don't ask others for the sources you claim exist", there is an expectance those sources would have already not been found. This is not the case here. 11WB (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
      A WP:BEFORE search is naturally assumed when one nominates something, obviously. If the sources are "duh" staring you in the face, then maybe the person was negligent. I don't think this is one of those times.
      The sources you brought up are a lot more about One Piece in general than they are the Grand Line, and trivially mention it. It screams "Googling Grand Line and linking any source that contains those words". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
      That's ridiculous. I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion now. 11WB (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Split. (TL;DR: The article is a mess, the Grand Line concept does not seem notable, but all the content in the article can be reused and it can lead to two new articles on notable concepts: World of One Piece and a list of One Piece locations). I don't see how this meets WP:GNG. I looked at the Reception section, which has three paras of prose, and it is NOT ABOUT Grand Line! It's just about the series and/or its world. This article is a mess - it combines the prose concept of World of One Piece (possibly notable), with a list of One Piece locations (likely to pass WP:NLIST) and a lot of content that should be in the list of One Piece characters. Furtunately, this mess is salvagable with a little effort. List entries on characters need to go to the chracter list. List entries for places should be used to create a list of places. What remains can be expanded with One Piece#Setting to create a prose article. The term Grand Line can redirect to either the new world article or the a list of locations. Similar splits/redirects should also happen with the even weaker entry at East Blue, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Blue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    PS. Addendum. If the list of One Piece characters is too long, we can consider some sublists. We have List of One Piece pirates and some others. Even a List of Grand Line characters might do. PPS. World Government (One Piece) also merits looking at, it's a half-article half-list again, sigh. Even more so Four Emperors (One Piece), which mixes pirates with world building. What we need is an article about the world/setting, with lists for characters and locations, not a bunch of overlapping half-prose half-list fancrufty entries a la fandom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    I can support a "Universe of One Piece" article, but there doesn't really seem to be much content here that can be reused. It would need a total rewrite, so my point about this particular article stands. People are free to make the "Universe" article later if they wish. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    With the page renamed as a "List of Grand Line characters in One Piece", or a "List of One Piece characters from Grand Line", or a "List of One Piece Grand Line characters" might be the best option rather than creating a page about the "world of One Piece" or a list of locations, since the goal of the article is to list the characters from the series. (and also, to prevent the "List of One Piece characters" from being reduced to just naming the Revolutionary Army members if we moved the remaining locations there) - BrookTheHumming (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: Based on the information provided by @BrookTheHumming and @Plumber, this can be kept per WP:SPLIT. The article has an over-reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources, this can be resolved through general editing. 11WB (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    11WB What do you mean by this? Neither stated anything specific, they both just gave WP:VAGUEWAVE WP:ITSNOTABLE stances without demonstrating any sort of claim to notability. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    I apologise if I wasn't clear. This comment from @Plumber explains that there was a previous consensus to split an article here due to a large word count. 11WB (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what part of that comment is supposed to be helping me here. That comment doesn't address notability at all. It doesn't even link to this consensus/discussion it alludes to. SPLIT doesn't just give license to split off anything when an article gets too big. The guidance people keep missing is that if it gets too big, that it should be split or trimmed. Like 99% of this article is plot regurgitation sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    I replied to your comment above. The !keeps are grounded in GNG even if not directly stated. Writing them off as ATA arguments is incorrect. The subject is notable. This article was previously split because the older article was too big. It doesn't need to be split again, it just needs improvement. 11WB (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    'It doesn't even link to this consensus/discussion it alludes to.' - Talk:List of One Piece characters/Archive 4#Reducing article size (I). 11WB (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you, at the very least you're not trying to VAGUEWAVE your way through AFD. I'm not sure I'm convinced by that...collection...of sources, or a 16 year old discussion that also doesn't discuss notability, but at least you're making an effort to provide examples. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    I appreciate that. I !vote based on what I'm presented with. In this instance we have an article that (as I acknowledged) relies heavily on primary sources. That can be resolved through general article improvement. The second matter relating to size is based on previous talk page discussions that instruct editors to create new articles where there are size issues with the main list. These issues didn't lead me to a case for deletion or splitting. 11WB (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge or Redirect - Notability is not inherited; just because a franchise is notable, does not mean every aspect of it has the independent notability to support a separate article. It's also concerning that, much like a lot of these recent One Piece spinout articles brought to AFD lately, it's overwhelmingly plot regurgitations sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources. The content of these articles is more akin to the way fan wikias are written. If notability isn't established (I'm not convinced with the weak collection of sources provided so far) and article size is an issue, then trimming and consolidating is the way to address this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per the claims of the other users that went with this decision. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    Come on, the low effort responses are hitting a new low at this point... Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    With the utmost respect @Serge, editors are allowed to !vote however they want to. All !keeps are backed by GNG and previously established consensus. It's unfair to call out legitimate !votes as WP:ATA and "low effort". 11WB (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    The thing is, that's not a "!vote", saying "I agree with others" is simply a vote. Pure votes are against WP policy; see WP:CON and the more indepth WP:NOTAVOTE. Lest I be called a hypocrite, I admit to sometimes doing that when I think the result is obvious, but this is far from obvious and reliable sources have yet to be presented. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, editors are allowed to give any stance they like. And editors are also allowed to respond to point out that they believe said arguments are weak and/or aren't policy based. I am allowed to call out people for what I perceive are ATAs. You are free to disagree with my conclusion. Your disagreement is noted. I still don't agree with you. And that's all fine. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep based on WP:CSK #3 or keep. "Fails WP:GNG entirely in its current state" is a rationale at odds with the notability guideline, specifically WP:ARTN, as notability is always related to the topic, never the "current state" of the article. The essay WP:ALLPLOT ask us to improve the article, not delete it. Taking up the possibly intended rationale of the topic failing notability, secondary sources have been put forward which establish notability. There's also some academic commentary e.g. "The Semiotic Meaning of One-Piece Symbols: The Inspiration of Generation Z in the August 2025 Demonstrations".(Name added. Daranios (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)) Again I can only ask Zxcvbnm or anyone nominating for deletion on grounds of notability to please provide an analysis of their WP:BEFORE search required by policy, so that we can all stopy wasting time correcting rationales and focussing the effort on debating the available actual sourcing (or lack thereof). Daranios (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    You are implying that I bad faith nominated this for deletion "knowing" it was notable and phrased my wording to throw people off. This is untrue, essentially an ad hominem argument, and furthermore it's assuming bad faith. I would ask you to immediately remove these implications from your argument as well as the speedy keep request. Nothing about saying that it currently fails GNG implies that I think it is notable, only that I can see it isn't notable right now and cannot find anything to prove it is.
You could have just asked what I meant by "current" rather than resorting to casting aspersions and making this debate ugly. Especially given your counter-evidence is a WP:VAGUEWAVE at "some" academic sources. It is incredibly disappointing and disingenuous to use such Wikilawyering. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
I have referred to several sources put forward by 11WB and have added one specific academic source. Further academic sources, "Netflix's Transcultural Odyssey: Adapting Nationality and Masculinity in Eiichiro Oda's One Piece" and "The Otherness of Heroes: The Shonen as Outsider and Altruist in Oda Eiichiro's One Piece" each have brief but specific non-plot commentary on the Grand Line. As the amount of sources found so far is not overwhelming, I'll update my stance. Daranios (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Edit conflict: I was replying to this version: Huh, that's the opposite of what I wrote, isn't it? I have assumed that you intended to say that the topic fails notability, i.e. that it is not notable. (While you've actually based you non-notable judgement on article content, which is in conflict with WP:ARTN and so on.) I did not at all want to imply that you said anything which you knew was not true. Please read my statement again, and if this does not clear things up, please point out exactly where my phrasing is off and intend to correct it. Daranios (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Well, regardless of what you intended to say, !voting "Speedy keep" is an assault on the nominator's competence that goes beyond simply saying you think it's notable, as is nitpicking the nomination's wording. If you want to say keep and put forth sources, you are free to do so. This is going overboard for a nomination from an experienced editor. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Objectively the wording of your nomination does not conform to what notability requires, so I find the speedy keep appropriate. And the wording sounds like a nomination based solely on looking into the article. I am assuming in good faith that you did a BEFORE search. You are an experienced editor, too. So why not sharing the result of that search? Why not stating right away that your search did not get significant sources, ideally with some details, like if there were sources but you did not find them sufficient and give us the reasons why? Saves us all the nitpicking and work in searching which you have already done. But because I have assumed that you did that search, I have added a second rationale answering a "no sources were found, therefore this topic fails WP:GNG" nomination. I don't see any ad hominem in that. I am sorry if it came accross like that despite my intentions to the contrary. I do not want to promote a battleground mentality, I do want to keep this on the facts. I'll add with regard to WP:VAGUEWAVE another time. Daranios (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
As an addendum, I have voluntarily withdrawn AfDs before if I saw good enough sources. I am not a diehard deletionist who will go down with the ship, I have made many fictional universe articles, so this sort of battleground mentality is rather unnecessary. Maybe argue on the merits of the sources rather than trying to find "gotchas" in the nomination's wording that don't even make sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:53, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
And I am grateful for all of that. Daranios (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
I agree with the point @Daranios makes about BEFOFE and article improvement > deletion. I will say @Daranios, @Zxcvbnm and to a certain extent @Serge have all violated WP:FOC (a policy that applies to AfD!) by throwing accusations at other participants, rather than focusing on the content. This is a very poor example of an AfD involving veteran Wikipedia editors. 11WB (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding that its not acceptable to point out WP:NOTAVOTE violations at AFD. Furthermore more, I hope you see the irony of accusing others of FOC in a comment that almost exclusively was commenting on other editors yourself. Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
FOC can be invoked unto itself. I'm disappointed by how this AfD has gone. AfD is a content focused board, not a conduct board. I reject your statement that I have a misunderstanding of what should be a pretty easy to understand policy. As I've already made clear, I am not going to be a drawn into an ad nauseum back and forth over this. AfD is not the correct venue to hurl conduct accusations at other editors. That will be my final word on the matter. 11WB (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge (possibly in a split way) to a restored World of One Piece article or keep. I believe enough sources have been put forward to establish notability of the topic even though the amount of available commentary is on the smaller side as compared to the overall material. But seeing that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Blue is going on, putting those two topics and the overall world of One Piece into one article, pooling the secondary sources, might be the best solution on a WP:PAGEDECIDE basis. Splitting out characters, possibly putting them into List of One Piece characters, and also possibly splitting out a List of One Piece locations as suggested above might be beneficial, but could be worked out in the long run and does not need to be solved in the deletion discussion. Bowing out now, too. Daranios (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    A "World of One Piece" article would be quite unnecessary, since for something like that it would suffice to simply move the content back to the "List of One Piece characters", instead of removing the sections focused on locations that remained on that page. Therefore, I reiterate that perhaps it would suffice to rename this article as a list of characters, since that is its main purpose.
    Although in the discussion about the "East Blue" article I already mentioned that perhaps that page should be moved to "List of One Piece characters", I believe that the content in "Grand Line" should be kept separate from that page, mainly due to its great length. But renaming it as what it is: A list of characters by location in a media ("List of Grand Line characters in One Piece", "List of One Piece characters from Grand Line", "List of One Piece Grand Line characters"...), including their voice or live-action performers, instead of treating it as an article about a location and other locations within it. - BrookTheHumming (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge as compromise. Once you remove most of the unreliable or primary sourced material, what's left seems like it would largely retread what's in the main series article. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Split: character listings should be split to an appropriate List of XX characters in One Piece (or similar) article, the WP:GNG of which I am not going to consider here. There is some content on the Grand Line itself, views on how it is perceived in the work's worldbuilding, tenuously just enough to establish WP:GNG and justify a short article, but nothing much. Of the 49 sources in the article, the 13 sources identified in the AFD to this point and two from my own WP:BEFORE (, ), there are only a few that I would consider sufficient to establish notability, and they all have issues. I'd say four clearly meet WP:SIGCOV, but they are not good sources as they are not known reliable sources: The Digital Fix, Looper, Spine and CBR (Valnet) 1. There are five sources that are borderline on WP:SIGCOV, I feel they just make the cut but I would understand if people disagree, and they also have quality issues: CBR (Valnet) 2, ONE Esports, Sohu 1, Sohu 2 and International Journal of Demos. The other 55 sources are either primary, do not mention the Grand Line at all, or do so only in extremely brief passing mentions that clearly don't meet WP:SIGCOV. Shazback (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
    Therefore, I say the page should be renamed "List of Grand Line characters in One Piece", but removing sections like "Climate and navigation", and the sections about locations without characters listed in them, so that the article doesn't focus on the fictional sea (since for the most part it deviates from that), and to focus on the objective for which the page was created of mentioning the supporting characters, instead of moving them back to "List of One Piece characters" (not only would that page be very long if we merged both, but it will continue to get longer in the future because the manga is still ongoing, and we'll likely have to add more new recurring characters in the future, becoming longer, and currently the best option to avoid an excessively long page that makes reading difficult for users is an article like the current one about the Grand Line characters).
    Besides that, it is true that we should also make some changes so that the article doesn't focus too much on the plot, which appears to be a problem that has led to this discussion, and add some extra information, such as a reference to some of the characters in a real event or references in other media, but... step by step. - BrookTheHumming (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
    That can be an acceptable alternative, but based on the discussion here the content of this trimmed & renamed "List of Grand Line characters in One Piece" has not been evaluated (e.g., vs WP:NLIST). If this is the selected outcome this discussion should not be taken as an endorsement of the new page's content. Shazback (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'm not sure breaking out lists of characters by fictional region has any sort of precedent on Wikipedia. Per WP:INU, we're generally supposed to be writing (and by extension, organizing) in more out-of-universe type content. This has been an ongoing concern with these One Piece article spinouts - there's far too much emphasis on chronicling in-universe, fictional descriptions than out-of-universe encyclopedic content. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
    I believe that with these articles it is a case in which we can apply the WP:ARTICLESFIRST. - BrookTheHumming (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that essay applies to all these splits on fictional anime locations. This isn't a fan wikia. That essay certainly doesn't override MOS guidance like INU. Sergecross73 msg me 01:01, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just noting that the very similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Blue just closed as merge, particularly because some said it may affect how we handle this article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:Notability is clear: article content does not determine notability (WP:ARTN), and notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The Grand Line clearly passes WP:GNG by being the primary setting of the story created by the 7th best-selling fiction author of all time. There exist numerous articles about the settings of other works on that list such as the Hogwarts and Beauxbatons articles. WP:Notability and WP:NPOV are clear here.--Plumber (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
    FYI, merge discussions have also been moved to AfD recently. It's fine if you did not know, but the "keep because it's notable" argument is no longer applicable if there is a potential merge target for the information. An argument as to why it should not be merged is also needed, and something a bit better than throwing out examples of other locations, especially way more notable ones like Hogwarts. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
    The Grand Line clearly passes WP:GNG by being the primary setting of the story created by the 7th best-selling fiction author of all time. I disagree. WP:GNG states: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. One Piece's sales, length or other metrics do not create notability for Grand Line. A good way to demonstrate notability is through sharing three independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the topic. Proving that these sources don't exist is not possible, so the burden is on those wanting to !keep the article to share these sources. Shazback (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
    If you haven't noticed, repeatedly declaring something notable without evidence or sourcing isn't working for you. It didn't work at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Blue and it didn't work at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-canonical characters in the One Piece franchise. Please familiarize yourself with the WP:GNG and especially WP:NOTINHERITED. Sergecross73 msg me 00:54, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The amount of vague waving and assertion in such a long discussion is truly dispiriting. Let's go back to sourcing. Is there a good sourcing basis for this article bearing in mind we are not fandom. Please can we have a source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge the content in List of One Piece characters. Although the article may become long if we merge them, I think readers will have no problem with it. According to WP:SIZERULE, the real problem arises when an article exceeds 15,000 words, because it can complicate reading. With the word count between 9,000 and 15,000 words (which is what will happen if we merge them) a division is recommended, but not strictly necessary. And with the way everything is classified in the article, I don't think readers will have any problem navigating the page. BrookTheHumming (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
    And it's not as though splitting is the only possible outcome, either - if the list of characters has grown too long, perhaps it needs to be made more concise, e.g. by removing characters which did not have a significant ongoing role, or by removing lengthy plot summaries from descriptions of characters and locations. Given the length of the series, an article on its characters does not necessarily need to comprehensively describe every single character appearing in it. Omphalographer (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to One Piece#Setting: The idea of merging the content here to a new article for the world of One Piece or List of One Piece locations is all well and good, but that can be done without an AfD. What's important here for this article right now is that this article is clearly not viable in its current state, and there is an obvious redirect target, so redirect it there. If, after this has been redirected, someone wishes to merge the content elsewhere or reuse the content for a more viable article, they're free to retrieve the content from the redirect's page history and do so, so long as there's consensus for their edits. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sharing the details of the source analysis I summarized above following relisting comment.
    First table: 50 sources in the article's current version, as edited by ~2026-26892-10 at 03:03, 2026 May 4:
More information Source, Independent? ...
Source assessment table prepared by User:Shazback
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
1. "Morgan versus Luffy! Who's the Mysterious Pretty Girl?". One Piece. Season 1. Episode 3. November 24, 1999. Fuji Television.
 No Primary ✘ No
2. "Prehistoric Island! The Shadow Lurking in Little Garden!". One Piece.
 No Primary ✘ No
3. "Ambush! The Bliking and Wapol the Blik". One Piece.
 No Primary ✘ No
4. "A Man's Promise, Luffy and the Whale Vow to Meet Again". One Piece.
 No Primary ✘ No
5. "A Pirate-Loving Town? Arrival at Whiskey Peak". One Piece.
 No Primary ✘ No
6. "Humongous Battle! The Giants Dorry and Brogy!". One Piece.
 No Primary ✘ No
7. "Deliver Princess Vivi! Luffy Pirates Depart". One Piece.
 No Primary ✘ No
8. "'One Piece' Adds Trio of Actors to Season 2 (Exclusive)". The Hollywood Reporter. June 26, 2024.
 No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article ✘ No
9. Martyn Warren & Merlyn De Souza (May 9, 2024). "One Piece: 15 Islands Inspired By Real Places". Screen Rant.
 No Tangential discussion of specific locations in the Grand Line ✘ No
10. Denise Petski (June 27, 2024). "Netflix's 'One Piece' Season 2 Casts Smoker, Tashigi, Wapol & Dalton". Deadline.
 No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article ✘ No
11. Andreeva, Nellie (August 21, 2024). "'One Piece': Katey Sagal To Play Dr. Kureha, Mark Harelik Cast As Dr. Hiriluk In Season 2". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved August 21, 2024.
 No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article ✘ No
12. Marimo John Frajs (June 14, 2023). "10 One Piece locations based on real-life places". Sportskeeda.
 No Tangential discussion of specific locations in the Grand Line ✘ No
13. Otterson, Joe (August 22, 2024). "'One Piece' Season 2 Casts Sendhil Ramamurthy as Nefertari Cobra". Variety.
 No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article ✘ No
14. Joe Otterson (January 15, 2025). "'One Piece' Season 2 at Netflix Adds Three to Cast (EXCLUSIVE)". Variety.
 No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article ✘ No
15. "Showdown in a Heat Haze! Ace vs. the Gallant Scorpion!". One Piece. Season 4. Episode 9. February 17, 2002. Fuji Television.
 No Primary ✘ No
16. "Mothers are Strong! Zoro's Hectic Household Chores!". One Piece. Season 1. Episode 55. July 15, 2007. Fuji Television.
 No Primary ✘ No
17. "The Girl in Search of Her Yagara! Great Search in the City of Water!". One Piece. Season 1. Episode 54. July 8, 2007. Fuji Television.
 No Primary ✘ No
18. "Sanji's Shock! Mysterious Old Man and His Super Yummy Cooking!". One Piece. Season 1. Episode 56. July 22, 2007. Fuji Television.
 No Primary ✘ No
19. "Motobaro". one-piece.com (in Japanese).
 No Official website ✘ No
20. Caitlin Sinclair Chappell (January 13, 2024). "One Piece Keeps Greek Mythology Alive With Boa Hancock". Anime Herald.
 No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article ✘ No
21. "キキョウ". one-piece.com.
 No Official website ✘ No
22. "ベラドンナ". one-piece.com.
 No Official website ✘ No
23. "エニシダ". one-piece.com.
 No Official website ✘ No
24. "ネリネ". one-piece.com.
 No Official website ✘ No
25. One Piece Log Collection: God (DVD) (in Japanese). Avex Mode. 2011.
 No Primary ✘ No
26. One Piece: Season 3: Second Voyage (DVD). Funimation Entertainment. 2010. ISBN 978-1-4210-2143-0.
 No Primary ✘ No
27. "Cristina Valenzuela (289 Character Images)". Behind The Voice Actors. Archived from the original on 2021-01-26. Retrieved 2021-01-27.
 No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article ✘ No
28. Kara Ketchum (June 21, 2023). "15 Strongest Female Devil Fruit Users In One Piece". Comic Book Resources.
 No Mentions "Grand Line", but not significant coverage ✘ No
29. "One Piece Characters Based On Historical Figures". Comic Book Resources. October 24, 2024.
 No Mentions "Grand Line", but not significant coverage ✘ No
30. Cordero, Rosy (November 25, 2025). "'One Piece' Casts Awdo Awdo & Daisy Head For Season 3". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved November 25, 2025.
 No Not sufficient to meet significant coverage of "Grand Line" ✘ No
31. One Piece Log Collection: Chopper (DVD) (in Japanese). Avex Mode. 2010.
 No Primary ✘ No
32. 4Kids Entertainment (June 17, 2006). "Zero". One Piece. Episode 72. Cartoon Network.
 No Primary ✘ No
33. One Piece: The Desert Princess and the Pirates: Adventures in Alabasta (DVD). Funimation Entertainment. 2008. ISBN 978-1-4210-1124-0.
 No Primary ✘ No
34. Nellie Andreeva (November 3, 2025). "'One Piece' Casts Cole Escola As Bon Clay In Season 3". Deadline.
 No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article ✘ No
35. Denise Petski (January 14, 2025). "'One Piece' Adds Sophia Anne Caruso, Mark Penwill & Anton David Jeftha To Season 2 Cast". Deadline.
 No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article ✘ No
36. Maas, Jennifer (June 25, 2024). "Netflix's 'One Piece' Season 2 Casts Baroque Works Villains Mr. 9, Mr. 5, Miss Valentine and Mr. 3 (EXCLUSIVE)".
 No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article ✘ No
37. Keisha Hatchett (March 10, 2026). "What Is Baroque Works in ONE PIECE Season 2? The Deadly Foes Explained". Netflix Tudum.
 No Mentions "Grand Line", but not significant coverage ✘ No
38. Julián Jorge Fernández Loyarte (June 17, 2025). "Best One Piece Characters Created For The Anime". GameRant.
 No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article ✘ No
39. "A Special Presentation Related to the Movie! A Gold Lion's Ambition on the Move!". One Piece. Season 13. Episode 5. November 15, 2009. Fuji Television.
 No Primary ✘ No
40. "A Special Presentation Related to the Movie! The Fierce Onslaught of the Amigo Pirates!". One Piece. Season 13. Episode 7. November 29, 2009. Fuji Television.
 No Primary ✘ No
41. 「One Piece」ついに100巻 ジャンプ編集長が語るトップ君臨の訳 (in Japanese). Mainichi Shimbun. September 2, 2021. Archived from the original on September 2, 2021. Retrieved September 17, 2021.
 No Near-primary, interview ✘ No
42. Takahashi, Rika (1998). "One Piece". Society for the Promotion of Japanese Animation. Archived from the original on February 1, 2009. Retrieved May 19, 2009.
 No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article ✘ No
43. Garrity, Shaenon K. "Five for Friday #13: Manga/Pulp". Tom Spurgeon. Archived from the original on August 20, 2013. Retrieved July 5, 2009.
 No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article ✘ No
44. Pine, Jarred (January 21, 2006). "One Piece Vol. #09". Mania Entertainment. Archived from the original on July 20, 2009. Retrieved July 6, 2009.
 No Mentions "Grand Line", but not significant coverage ✘ No
45. "One Piece GN 63–35 – Review". Anime News Network. November 18, 2012. Archived from the original on April 3, 2015. Retrieved March 30, 2015.
 No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article ✘ No
46. Veira, Margaret (January 13, 2009). "One Piece Vol. 20: Showdown at Alubarna (Advance Review)". Active Anime. Archived from the original on December 25, 2011. Retrieved December 24, 2011.
 No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article ✘ No
47. Vuk, Mario (May 20, 2002). "Comic-Besprechung – One Piece 14" (in German). Splash Comics. Archived from the original on March 4, 2026. Retrieved May 19, 2009.
 No Mentions "Grand Line", but not significant coverage ✘ No
48. Colbert, Isaiah (September 14, 2021). "I Just Read 1,025 Chapters Of One Piece, And It's A Damn Masterpiece". Kotaku. Archived from the original on November 1, 2021. Retrieved October 31, 2021.
 No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article ✘ No
49. Bashir, Dale (May 12, 2021). "How I Went From Passive Onlooker To Massive 'One Piece' Fan During the Pandemic". IGN (in Japanese). Archived from the original on November 6, 2021. Retrieved November 6, 2021.
 No Mentions "Grand Line", but not significant coverage ✘ No
50. 『機動戦士ガンダム 逆襲のシャア』富野由悠季監督インタビュー
 No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article (based on automated translation) ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Close

Second table: 15 sources identified in comments above (including my comment):

More information Source, Independent? ...
Source assessment table prepared by User:Shazback
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes No No mentions of "Grand Line" in article ✘ No
Yes ~ Seems OK from quick look, but is not a known reliable source, past RS discussion is over 10 years old and may be out of date Yes ~ Maybe
Yes No Part of Valnet ~ I'd say it just about meets SIGCOV for Grand Line, despite mainly discussing specific locations ✘ No
Yes ~ Seems OK from quick look, but is not a known reliable source Yes ~ Maybe
Yes ~ Seems OK from quick look, but is not a known reliable source ~ I'd say it just about meets SIGCOV for Grand Line ~ Maybe
Yes No Mentions "Grand Line", but not significant coverage (based on automated translation) ✘ No
Yes ~ Feels like a blog, but in the past Sohu has been accepted as a RS - check would be necessary Yes ~ Maybe
Yes ~ Feels like a blog, but in the past Sohu has been accepted as a RS - check would be necessary; also "Source: One Piece fans" does not inspire confidence Yes ~ Maybe
Yes Yes Seems reliable No Mentions "Grand Line", but not significant coverage ✘ No
Yes No Mentions "Grand Line", but not significant coverage ✘ No
61. International Journal of Demos The Semiotic Meaning of One-Piece Symbols: The Inspiration of Generation Z in the August 2025 Demonstrations https://hk-publishing.id/index.php/ijd-demos/article/view/572
 Yes ~ Unclear if this is a reliable journal - additional input would be useful ~ Over 100 words only because it quotes two interviewees in full, who discuss other topics than the Grand Line ~ Maybe
62. Netflix's Transcultural Odyssey: Adapting Nationality and Masculinity in Eiichiro Oda's One Piece https://repository.digital.georgetown.edu/downloads/585e7615-5a90-4b2b-83ba-9987133c764f
 Yes No Mentions "Grand Line", but not significant coverage ✘ No
63. The Otherness of Heroes: The Shonen as Outsider and Altruist in Oda Eiichiro's One Piece https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/ircl.2011.0026
 Yes No Mentions "Grand Line", but not significant coverage ✘ No
Yes ~ Unclear if there is any editorial process or if the author is a recognized expert, seems to be a blog - but is managed/affiliated to an educational structure Yes ~ Maybe
Yes No Part of Valnet Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Close

Shazback (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

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.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI