Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Tales of the Abyss

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms in Tales of the Abyss[edit]

This is a game guide-ish list that defines "terms" that should be contained within the main article if they're important. It has no place on this site. TTN (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policies are on articles like this. I created it when, at the time, there existed similar articles such as "List of terms in Final Fantasy VII" (which I notice no longer exists). I also created it because it felt weird to use terms in the other articles such as "hyperresonance", "replica", and "Grand Fonic Hymn" and need to explain them each time. However, if it violates Wikipedian policies or what-not, I don't have an objection to it being deleted. Sorry about that. King Zeal (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like the instruction manual for the game. Non-notable, and unsourced. I doubt anything other then primary sources could be found for this. Ridernyc (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anything notable enough or integral to a basic understanding of the plot should be covered in Tales of the Abyss. Anything that is not will not be of interest to the general reader and should not be covered in Wikipedia. I highly doubt there will be secondary sources that cover these things specifically to establish notability. Pagra shtak 20:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment if they are important that would result in an unweildly main article. Thus TTN's position is flawed.Genisock2 (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So your argument would be that if the terms are important they should not be covered in the main article. Is that position really any better? Pagra shtak 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 08:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these are better explained and treated inside the prose of the article itself. User:Krator (t c) 11:50, 15 January 2008 (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.