Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Xenogears terms (2nd nomination)

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. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xenogears terms[edit]

Previously survived AFD, but has been {{prod}}'d. Bringing it back here to see what the flagpole says. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Shaxne 16:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a list of definitions. Pretty obvious. Recury 16:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we all agree that this is a list of defintions? No one seems to be challenging that point and it is exactly one of the criteria under WP:NOT. If we can agree on that, and you all still think it should be kept, perhaps the policy needs to be changed. I can't remember any but the most obvious (single) dicdef articles being deleted at AFD, and even then there are usually people claiming that they can be expanded. Recury 22:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are any of these essential to understanding the other articles on the Xenogears series? --tjstrf 16:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep much more useful as one article/list than spread out over dozens of articles. As for the "list of definitions" reasoning, we have many of those: see List of glossaries and Category:Glossaries for a start. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've seen those. We shouldn't have them. Recury 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia isn't a list of definitions, but in some cases, a list of definitions can be useful to Wikipedia. It is far better to have a list of terms that can be linked to than having to define each term in every single article on the subject repeatedly. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 23:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of how useful or not this might be, it appears to be verified and, important to me, already survived an afd nomination previously. Unless something significant has changed since then, I don't like the idea of renominating articles that already have been discussed. Dugwiki 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki I'm a fence sitter on the need for inclusion of "Glossary" articles in Wikipedia. I personally think they would be better in Wikibooks, Wiktionary, and the like. But some of them are ok. Wikipedia, in general, is supposed to be about writing "Beautiful prose" Making a glossary is the weasel way out of it. It's also just a long re-statement of plot terms. (WP:NOT, WP:WAF) And to top it off, I don't see a single in-line citation in the entire thing. Helpful? Yes, maybe to some. But helpful isn't a reason for inclusion in the wikipedia. This would be a great addition Wikibooks or a Xenosaga wikia. --Kunzite 01:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list of definitions, many which are nonessential to understanding the basic plot. Chevinki 03:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the article it is linked to is about a real topic--it is--then placing the glossary here simply extends the article without overrunning the size limitations. I do not see why this is a problem. I think that calling it names like "a weasel way out" is simply foisting a denigrating lexicon onto the attempt at coherence for the article--not an argument so much as failure to have an argument and resorting to abuse. I do not mean that to be insulting, I am just saying it is the old ad hominem trap that we all fall into from time to time. The article itself is about a very complicated text and the glossary serves the purpose of supporting it well.

Malangthon 00:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Thunderbrand 18:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this again and see if people can resist the temptation to vandalise my contribution by placing it where it was never intended to go. And let's see if the the person or persons who have decided they own Wikipedia can keep their incoherent blathering to themselves.

Malangthon 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an observation--I am still going through this stuff and some of it is mind-numbingly off the wall--but to some extent this entire section comprises a real treasure--at least it will be in a generation or two. It chronicles many aspects of pop cutlure. Albeit not very well in some cases but if we had this sort of collection of articles on say, 13th century England, it would be highly valued. I am just saying, before completely deleting all of any article, ask yourself what would it signify to a reader who will not be born for another 20 years. So, careful with the broad strokes. Malangthon 02:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So make a copy and put it on some other wiki. Recury 19:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil on Wikipedia and do not needlessly accuse people of vandalism. Please also refer to the Wikipedia deletion policies which suggest that comments should be added in a bulleted list with the deletion suggestion summarized in bold. Recently we had a deletion bot going through AFDs and gathering information. It was requested that subheadings found in pages for deletion be fixed. It seems that this project went on hiatus within the past few says, but I hadn't realized it. Still, this is a deviation from the standard AFD formatting and has already caused comments to be added to this subheading. It also gives undue visual weight to your opinions on the subject. I have removed the heading again and reformatted your comments to the regular AFD discussion format. --Kunzite 01:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not explain the real-world significance of any of these characters (it doesn't even say "from the popular game"), uses no inline or footer references (WP:NOR/WP:CITE), indiscriminate list of seemingly ALL terms (WP:NOT)... we've had gaming glossaries on afd before (one was for Half-Life 2, I think) and they were deleted, so there is also a precedent. Hardly any of these terms are of value to non-players (in which case the main article should cover them anyway), and even those that are can be better understood from the manual/guide/review/game/llama/etc. Let's make it very simple: if these terms are extremely notable give them their own articles; if not, mention them in the main article; if not notable enough even for that, get them off the ~~plane~~ wiki. Garrett^Talk 02:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not substitute for a game guide. Combination 02:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Xenosaga glossary. Glossaries are permitted, and that is what this is. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they aren't permitted, since glossaries are lists of definitions, which is something specifically excluded by [{WP:NOT]]. Just because articles already exist that violate a policy doesn't mean that the policy doesn't apply. Recury 13:05, 27 October 2006 (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.