Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of The King of Braves GaoGaiGar

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. Secret ^account 02:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of The King of Braves GaoGaiGar

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

This is an unnecessary collection of in-universe details without any sources to provide real world importance. TTN (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a horrible mess, but deletion is not clean up and per WP:CSC#2. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list is an overly thorough mess that would be reduced to nothing by regular standards, likely with nothing remaining but whatever exists in the current article. Wikia exists for such in-depth information, while a fiction article on this site relies on concise summaries to get the information across. There is no worth in keeping this, much like the dozens of other lists that were removed years ago. TTN (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LISTN states, "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. The topic is also not 'the glossary', but the notable topic of "The King of Braves GaoGaiGar". All the pages need a lot of work, but deletion is a last resort. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So where are the sources about "the grouping or set in general" ? The topic is glossary/terms/concepts of TKoBGGG (and not TKoBGGG itself, contrary to what you claim, which is located at The King of Braves GaoGaiGar, 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) 08:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - AfD is not cleanup, but the article is unencyclopedic. I can't see how a list of terminology for a series can be notable. This belongs in a Wikia wiki, not on Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:36, 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I cited something which says it could meet it, but merging or cleaning it up is fine. It does not need to meet "real world notability" to exist as a list. The same as how most of these PLOT violating "list of episodes" pages are. Japanese wiki frequently has a section devoted to terminology on their pages. I'll move to merge, but let's not delete that which can be saved. AFD is not clean up afterall. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The whole point of WP:N is that "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large", which includes lists. So yes, it needs to meet "real world notability". Being a list is not a free pass. Most of "lists of episodes" do meet the criteria as most TV episodes have received collective attention in secondary sources. That is not the case of glossary/plot clarification.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what are you thinking of as the "topic" here, Folken? postdlf (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is "terms from the anime and manga series The King of Braves GaoGaiGar and The King of Braves GaoGaiGar FINAL". Find independent reliable sources for that and the article can stay as a stand alone, otherwise it has to be deleted or merged.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to ChrisGualtieri. If Chris is willing to improve the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is fundamentally not a glossary. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is fundamentally not a glossary. Occasionally a glossary may be necessary as a reference appendix to a large category of articles, such as Glossary of poetry terms or Glossary of botanical terms. One based on an individual cartoon show is pretty ridiculous though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 28 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.