Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Macross Frontier terminology

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Macross Frontier terminology[edit]

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

This is an extremely large list of in-universe details relying almost entirely on primary sources. The amount of depth is unnecessary, as plot summaries and episode lists should be able to convey the necessary details without 80kb of supporting info. Wikia is a home for such specific details, and there should be little reason to have to merge anything from it. TTN (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obliterate into a googol quark-sized pieces - I've said this a number of times before. Terminology sections/articles are almost never encyclopedic. Why? For one thing, such terms are rarely, if ever, covered in reliable sources. While articles on in-universe elements can and do exist (see Jutsu (Naruto) for an excellent example), that's because the fictional elements in question have real-world, significant coverage about the elements themselves. Another problem is that such articles are always full of in-universe information and original research. I'm all for improving even the worst articles as long as they can be salvaged, but terms used in an anime are not inherently notable. At most, they can be mentioned in a Plot or Setting section, but detailed information belongs in Wikia, not Wikipedia. Finally, giving undue weight on in-universe information violates MOS:FICTION. Even if it were allowed, the article would still violate Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as a terminology article is essentially a dictionary. There is WP:GLOSSARIES, but it's only a proposal and hasn't been approved yet. If there's a Macross Frontier Wiki somewhere, most likely the information here should already be there. And this is coming from an anime fan from the country where Megumi Nakajima's mother is from. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per 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 whatever issues should be fixed. There is no reason to remove content off Wikipedia simply because the individual terms need to meet N as Jutsu (Naruto) must and does. This page contains a lot of in-universe information because it has to, the context can only come from its materials and secondary publications which refer to those terms. Deletion is also not clean up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So where are the sources about "the grouping or set in general" ? You talk about "secondary publications which refer to those terms". I don't see them. What about WP:NOTPLOT ? Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Exclusively sourced to first party sources, so doesn't not demonstrate notability even for "the set or the group" per WP:LISTN. Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:16, 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.