Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in The Twelve Kingdoms (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. Sandstein 07:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms in The Twelve Kingdoms

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't thing a glossary of terms in a fictional works is in the scope of Wikipedia. As it exists, the page also fails to assert any real-world significance. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless it can be shown that reliable sources discuss the unique terminology of this fictional work in depth. Current article is unreferenced, so should be deleted unless specific references are identified. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This is an unsourced list of fictional trivia. Much of it seems to be original research, in that many of the entries are editors' own interpretations and speculations when the primary source doesn't state these things explicitly. Reyk _YO! 21:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How important is defining these terms when it comes to reading the articles on The Twelve Kingdoms? Based on a spot check of a few of the terms, it seems not very much as very few are even used, and the few that are can be explained in its context. That means at the very least, the list is excessive plot details that would just confuse a reader unfamiliar with the series. A list of terms should not exist for the sake of having a list of terms. So I will have to side with deleting this list. Not only do these terms have no real world context, they also don't have any in-universe context either. —Farix (t | c) 01:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge. I honestly think these glossaries are harmless and a reasonable part of an article - which can then be spun off due to summary style if it gets too long. However, fair enough that Wikipedia has trended against this kind of thing; just no need to delete the page - merge & redirect it so history is not lost. I'll do it myself if nobody else particularly objects (but, unless the page is a copyvio or something, I can't see a good reason not to do at least a minimal merge.) SnowFire (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply SnowFire, why should we merge unreferenced, unverifiable content into another article in main space? We don't keep material because it is "harmless" but instead because the material is verifiable and encyclopedic. If you are so interested, why not userfy the content instead of merging, so that you can search for reliable sources that discuss this content at your leisure? If it's not verifiable, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. So, if you find reliable, independent sources and add them to a draft in your sandbox, you can bring the improved material back to main space. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I never edited the article myself, and have no inclination to do so, and user-fying articles shouldn't be just for creating archives (trans-wiking, perhaps). Also calling it unverifiable and unreferenced is incorrect. This is one of my pet peeves back from the original fiction wars of 2007; it's all easily verifiable and referenced - to the primary source. Which IS a problem, but a slightly different one. As usual, you'd want independent sources to prove notability, but something like a glossary inherently wants to be referenced largely to primary sources anyway. And why merge? For the obvious reason, to make the merged article better and Wikipedia's coverage more comprehensive - a glossary is entirely relevant for subjects with a lot of jargon. And even if very little was merged, then history is at least preserved rather than tossed down the memory hole. We obviously differ in our estimations of how valuable this content is, but don't pretend like it's a mystery why others would want to preserve it in some form. SnowFire (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I redirected the article. Not as much to merge as expected, but it's possible a bit more might be mergable in the future, so please leave the history. (I'll close this myself if nothing happens for a bit, but will hold off in case an admin really wants to delete rather than merge.) SnowFire (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be redirecting the article somewhere else in the middle of an AfD discussion. Expectantly when no one else has supported the merge/redirect to begin with. —Farix (t | c) 10:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, merges in the middle of AfDs happen all the time. And the debate was about to be closed, anyway, so that was hardly "in the middle." That said, sure, will leave it up to the closer (but a merge is literally harmless unless you absolutely insist on purifying all traces Wikipedia of evil fancruft including the article history, etc.) SnowFire (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this one is not likely to close as merge. Most people have said delete. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. Did you notice that I merged all of one sentence, and that Wikipedia is not largely different whether there is a redirect preserving the history for ease of transwiki / future reference? You've "won" if that's what you're worried about. It's not uncommon to leave histories behind, however, when there's a potential of later improvement, or even just reference (all those Wikipedia pages with "This is inactive but retained for historical reference"). All it takes is one request, since the result is still no article afterward pending a rewrite. Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DNC imam controversy for an example that actually was saved by one merge vote vs. a ton of deletes, and is still an article today. SnowFire (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the DNC Imam article, an editor completed rewrote the article. You said that you redirected this page (which doesn't mean merge, it means redirecting without changing the target article. If you want to change the direction of this discussion, rescue the page with verifyable material and see if people will change their mind. Merging will not do that. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:18, 3 September 2011 (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.