Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Please Save My Earth
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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Glossary of Please Save My Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a list of terms relying entirely on primary sources without anything to establish real world notability. TTN (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The series or franchise is what is notable, and so the question is whether these elements of it are significant enough that summarization is helpful to the reader to understand the topic. It is not required that each element of such a list itself be notable (see WP:CSC#2). We also have to keep in mind that Please Save My Earth comprises 21 manga volumes and six part anime series, so it isn't surprising that it would take more than just the current plot section in the parent article to describe those works. At any rate, none of this is included in that article at present and so at least some of this would be merged there in some form. postdlf (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Such articles are not a norm for fictional topics (series with 50+ volumes and hundreds of episodes pretty much only have lists of characters), and Wikia exists for such in-depth descriptions. The volume list describes the plot of the series well enough, so any further expansion seems unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the volume list is sufficient, but I still think that's something to be determined through ordinary discussion by editors familiar with the subject rather than under the gun at AFD. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can find someone who actually wants to sort through it in a timely manner, I'll withdraw it, but I think that is unlikely given that there have been like ten edits throughout all of the related articles in the last eight months. Overall, it is an unnecessary list of overly in-depth details not suitable for this site, nor would such a list be kept in the article itself under normal conditions. TTN (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "...in a timely manner..." Exactly my point when I used the phrase "under the gun at AFD": artificial time constraints that have nothing to do with the ultimate potential of the content. postdlf (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The number of edits over a period of time are not sufficient reason to delete in place of actual clean up. The page is far from ideal, but this can be shortened and fixed. I've seen academic works that hate to go into terminology, but must simply because comprehension rests upon understanding major terms and concepts in fictional works. The obvious answer is to fix it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only way to fix a non-notable article is to find sources or to delete it (or merging it, which can be also be done at AfD). I encourage you to reconsider your position here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - We've already have some (loose) consensus that terminology sections or articles are unencyclopedic and don't have a place on Wikipedia. Such sections/articles are fancruft magnets and it is essentially impossible for such articles to be notable. These terms aren't covered in reliable sources anyway. It's just a collection of WP:OR that will only interest a specific audience. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete this articles fails WP:GNG in that there is no significant coverage from reliable independent sources that would establish the topic's real-world notability, and would help the article to be more than a regurgitation of plot that violates WP:NOTPLOT. Since this article also consists in a user's personal summary/interpretation of plot elements from primary sources, there's a huge risk of it being WP:OR. As per Narutolovehinata5, there is no chance for "Glossary" articles to ever meet our guidelines.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GLOSSARIES, glossaries are a type of list, while this one is not really complex enough to need its own article; it could be pushed into the plot details. I'll move to merge. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GLOSSARIES is not a guideline.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GLOSSARIES, glossaries are a type of list, while this one is not really complex enough to need its own article; it could be pushed into the plot details. I'll move to merge. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:POTENTIAL, unlike other glossaries I do see sources here. Have more sources been looked for here and on Japanese sites? (WP:BEFORE) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are primary sources, so they have little importance in satisfying notability requirements. If such a list was a section in the main article, it would be removed during basic editing, so there is no real potential for improvement. TTN (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- the article has potential as it does have references at least and it seems to serve as a way of understanding the anime/manga involved. Also you never answered my question about WP:BEFORE - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This type of article has always been frowned upon as being overly detailed and unnecessary, and as I said, when the main article has a similar glossary, it is always removed when attempting to improve the article per regular standards. I think I've started at least ten other AfDs on similar lists with all of them being deleted. There is nothing to search because there is no way to source this from a real world context. Anything that could be found would be placed in the main article, so that is irrelevant. TTN (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Things have changed since 2009 though and WP:BEFORE remains a process for AfD, I have seen articles up for deletion as well that were kept because of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You won't find one GA or FA fiction related article with any sort of massive list like this other than character lists (which often can be given independent, real world context anyway), so I really don't think anything has changed. The only ones remaining will be those needing improvement. How exactly would you expect any sort of search to mean anything? Searching for the series will give sources on the series, searching "Glossary of Please Save My Earth" will obviously turn up nothing, and searching for the other terms also turns up nothing. There is nothing relevant in building this into a viable topic. As I compared it before, this article is small enough to have been an unwieldy set of sections in the main article. They would not be improved in that case, but generally unilaterally cut for being too in-depth. TTN (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've searched for "Please Save My Earth" + the various terms on Google and Google Books, and no significant result. If these terms were so instrumental to audience comprehension that they deserve their own article, there would be coverage in RS, but that's just not the case. WP:POTENTIAL is neither policy nor guideline so can't be used as a rationale at AfD. Applicable policies and guidelines are WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. If we have only primary sources then there cannot be a stand-alone for that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You won't find one GA or FA fiction related article with any sort of massive list like this other than character lists (which often can be given independent, real world context anyway), so I really don't think anything has changed. The only ones remaining will be those needing improvement. How exactly would you expect any sort of search to mean anything? Searching for the series will give sources on the series, searching "Glossary of Please Save My Earth" will obviously turn up nothing, and searching for the other terms also turns up nothing. There is nothing relevant in building this into a viable topic. As I compared it before, this article is small enough to have been an unwieldy set of sections in the main article. They would not be improved in that case, but generally unilaterally cut for being too in-depth. TTN (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Things have changed since 2009 though and WP:BEFORE remains a process for AfD, I have seen articles up for deletion as well that were kept because of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This type of article has always been frowned upon as being overly detailed and unnecessary, and as I said, when the main article has a similar glossary, it is always removed when attempting to improve the article per regular standards. I think I've started at least ten other AfDs on similar lists with all of them being deleted. There is nothing to search because there is no way to source this from a real world context. Anything that could be found would be placed in the main article, so that is irrelevant. TTN (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- the article has potential as it does have references at least and it seems to serve as a way of understanding the anime/manga involved. Also you never answered my question about WP:BEFORE - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are primary sources, so they have little importance in satisfying notability requirements. If such a list was a section in the main article, it would be removed during basic editing, so there is no real potential for improvement. TTN (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't cover the inclusion requirements for lists which specifically states at LISTN, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Given CSC and and LIST which allows for glossaries, this page aides in comprehension of the subject and does not need to have sources about "the glossary" as a topic because a glossary is not a topic; it is list of terminology. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So where are the sources about "the grouping or set in general" ? The topic is glossary/terms/concepts of PSME, so where is the secondary coverage about these terms ? What about WP:NOTPLOT ? What can't it be in a main article ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2013 (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.