Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Consensus is that this content is not supported by coverage in secondary sources, and as such is excessive in-universe plot detail that is not suitable for an encyclopedia. If someone has genuine intent to transwiki it somewhere useful I will happily assist by undeleting it somewhere temporarily, but consensus is clear it does not belong in Wikipedia in anything like this form. ~ mazca talk 01:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary

[edit]
Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is full of original research, it's written with an in-universe perspective and the text is material for a fansite, not Wikipedia. There is nothing notable here that isn't already covered in the many other Neon Genesis Evangelion articles, none of the references seem to be reliable sources and the content doesn't have real-world notability. I believe that this article is a perfect example of fancruft and therefore should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one is pretty hard...although it does have some real-world information with "gianax terms" it is unsourced, and the rest is primarially in-universe, plot related. It can't be helped. I go for Delete.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Way too specific for the topic, although it is a huge article. All in-universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFSaviator (talk • contribs) 22:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sourcing is (kinda) easy to the episodes, but difficult to do in other fashions. That aside, it explains the tech for an anime series that's widely known and acclaimed. Any anime fan who has some interest in learning about it would find it valuable since there are a lot of fictitious concepts, technologies and so on that have been explained here. I always thought/expected that anime should be treated similar to comics and allow for a lot of "in-universe" stuff - so I do not see a problem with the in-verse stuff either. On a final note, I always try to weigh the interest of the intended audience as a determining factor for notability. The article's intended audience is (1) NGE fans, and (2) anime fans (and possibly (3) fantasy/sci-fi fans). In that respect, it's far more notable and contains topics debated and discussed numerous places. I'm always saddened when people forget to look at the intended audience and how notable a subject is in their realm of interest. There are a lot of scientific articles that would be deleted pretty quickly with that same rationale applied. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Although it is OK to write about in-game/in-comic fictional places/events/technologies, it should generally be kept inside of other articles or inside articles about episodes. Even in a show as large as the simpsons, dedicated in-universe articles like this are generally not accepted. Please read Wikipedia's article on Fancruft. Thanks, TheFSAviator • T 22:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mistake fancruft for what this is. And Simpsons is a very bad comparison, as there is no technology that needs or warrants such explanations. And numerous other shows do have similar sections. But, more importantly, "Article A doesn't do that" is not accepted justification in such matters. As one example, since you've chosen that inappropriate road to travel down, want to hazard a guess as to how many such articles Star Trek and Star Wars have? Sometimes even articles about specific, individual technological items. You mistake what you disapprove of as fancruft because you dont see the relevance, notability or need for such. Go tell that to the Star Trek and Star Wars fans who maintain the dozens of pages on ST and SW technology and I am sure they will tell you they disagree vehemently with you - as I do (sans the vehement part) on this issue. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that comparing scientific articles, which deal with real world events, with an article about fiction is a false analogy. Also note that derivative articles about fictional works are frowned upon by Wikipedia. And if other fictional series have similar glossaries, that doesn't mean that they are in accordance with the guidelines. Quite the contrary. It just shows that not many have bothered to check what should and shouldn't be covered by Wikipedia. Note that many of the stand-alone articles that you cited have multiple issues or are part of another main topic. Jfgslo (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles don't relate to this issue. That just means they have either reached a consensus that Star Trek is notable enough to have it's own articles, or they simply aren't following WP policy. Either way, it's not an excuse to have a huge miscellany article about 1 anime series.
Umm, I suspect that wont go well... since that hasn't been done with the ST or SW tech articles. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • RObert 1) some wikiprojects are more stricter than most. It appears anime wikiproject is more strict than comics when it comes to in-universe information. 2)You can't justify an article for who it's intended for. Articles are meant to be read by anyone, you stated 3 types of fans, that clearly isn't notable. 3) too much in-universe and not from a real world point of view. the very few things it has is small and have no citation. 4) Comparing articles in order to keep, delete, or preserve isn't good. thats WP:OTHERSTUFF and some of those you mentioned are also not notable enough to be kept. This is most defintely fancruft. Not for the article idea, but for what it has and how it's described.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misinterpreted most of what I said. (1) the anime wikiproject is not necessarily more strict (in this regard) than the comics project - the standards currently being attempted to be applied are, (2) I'm justifying notability based on how notable it is to those who would know about the genre (anime, sci-fi, fantasy) - by your rationale, 90% of every scientific article needs to be removed, (3) solved with an "in universe" tag, just as is used in sci-fi stuff and comics and books, (4) that was my point above (please re-read what I wrote... I was pretty clear on making the same point) - my secondary point was that even if the other editor still wanted to use that justification, s/he was wrong - inotherwords, wrong either way... And finally, you define it as fancruft - I do not. That's no hard and fast line. It's your (and others) opinion that it's fancruft, while mine is contrary.ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is our opinion "fancruft"? Are you sure you even read the guideline???? 1)If we have stricter guidelines, than so be it. maybe the comics ikiproject should have stricter guiselines too. 2)You basically admitted, "notability" to you is based on the personal beliefs rather than WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTE. 3) That's not solving anything, thats basically admitting theres a problem. 4) Then it's pretty clear, there is no real reason within wikipedia standards that this should be kept. for you're second point, i'm not talking about reasoning is fancruft, i'm talkinga bout the article.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop twisting my words. (0) I never said your opinion is fancruft. I said it is your opinion that it is fancruft. The GUIDELINE on that is indicative of how subjective that can be - and hence we are here. (1) I never admitted to such, nor do I see the GUIDELINES being applied as you imply they are. (2) I admitted no such thing. Again, dont twist my words. It does not fail WP:V or WP:NOTE - it just needs citations - something I agreed with above as well. (3) it isn't admitting there is a problem, it's explaining how the page is written. (4) Wrong, I said neither premise proposed by the other editor applied. Again, dont twist my words. Please, really, spend more time reading what I wrote so your responses dont end up (unintentionally of course) twisting what I am saying into something entirely different. Either that, or if you cant spend enough time doing it, then please dont bother replying until you actually have the chance to read what I wrote. It just wastes both of our time. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not trying to twist your words. you should just be clearer and be simpler. i'm just going to say that it's not notable to wikipedia standards. You said it is notable to those who know the subject well, thats basically saying that it's notable to those who know about it , not to wikipedia standards. admitting an article is in=universe is a BAD thing in wikipedia, because we strive for out of universe point of view. And i'm pretty sure, no one has verified the article yet. And considering the size of the article, i would say it isn't. Also violates WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:IINFO.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I never ever ever said it's only notable to those who know the subject well. I said it was notable to a broad group of people.
Maybe I am going about this the wrong way:
  • The content is citable (even though it's largely not at the moment)
  • The content is notable in numerous respects... (and citable) and has been used as inspiration for other anime (such as Aquarion)
  • The article DOES have numerous flaws - but those are correctable
  • The article is written in universe, which *I* am fine with... but... it can easily be rewritten in real world format
  • AFAIR, the way the guidelines apply, with those criteria and issues noted above, fixing the article should be the primary goal - as opposed to deleting it. And for that, the better venue would be a request at the Anime Wikiproject.
  • The proposal to include/merge the content with the main article seems ludicrous to me, since we all know that such an action will then bring up the problem/concern that the main article is too long and needs to be trimmed of information.
Hope that helps spell it out better, and in a fashion that's easier to understand without confusing my meaning for something totally contrary to what I have already said. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • if it's citable, then prove it. it's a little too late to say "it can be" when it's nominated for deletion. I've tried looking for third party information, Do you realize how hard it is to look for information about these speccific subjects? I dont know if you realize this, but most of this is original research. This maybe the most remembered series, but it's not the most covered.
  • most of the content is not notable at the moment. citable? again, you're going to have to prove that.
  • Depends if its' really notable. which most of the content isn't. THeres a list of locales, list of weapons and equipment, list of miscelaneous too. I agree some information can be preserved but as an article, i doubt it could. the article name basically screams for trivia.
  • we should aways be "nuetral", and you personally, isn't reasssuring. Maybe, because your more familiar with other articles that are.
^^this tag proves it's not a good thing.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, though I still disagree with various of your points, I'd support Scavenge for salvageable content AND THEN delete. Does that sound like a decent proposal? I'd spend the time fixing the article - which especially when it's up for deletion, is appropriate (that too is a guideline, btw), but honestly, I'm already working on 5 other articles (two in my userspace, and three others that aren't there (which I am working on offline)), and I am VERY slow at content creation. I'd never get the current mess into something people would want to save in the time remaining. That leaves scavenging usable content or premises for the main NGE article since I am sure no one else will step up to salvage the current article under discussion. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, that's what I was trying to suggest above. ;-) I dont expect us to keep the trivia stuff - just merge what's appropriate to where it's appropriate (to whichever of the articles you have listed that is appropriate for whichever salvageable piece of info). As for cites, I havent looked recently, but I had a few years ago, and found tons of them. That may have changed with the delay in the live action and such - perhaps that's where the problem is, and where there is such an incongruency between what you're seeing and what I saw. I haven't had time to look recently, though I will trust your word on it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you suggest to "keep" instead of "redirect". i'm saying there is no information on the glossary to keep it independent.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No.... really... stop and read what I wrote... I think I made it very clear directly above. I even BOLDED it. Let me help you by making it simpler. I am currently suggesting:
Scavenge for SALVAGEABLE content and then DELETE <---------------
Really makes me wonder when you cannot notice something I so clearly bolded above. Note the words "SALVAGEABLE content" (in line with what you yourself suggested in relationship to the other articles) and "DELETE".
You're continuing to fight a battle that doesn't exist, no matter how I bold my current recommendation. So please, slow down and read what I wrote, since we've both agreed to pretty much the same thing. It looks kinda silly when we are arguing over the same thing. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're making this a battle ground. I'm just stating what you said with different words. you said salvage what is notalbe (redirect info to other articles) and then delete. and i've read what you said already.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so which is it? keep, merge, delete, or redirect?

Stop already. Really. And please don't accuse me of making this a battleground because you twist my every post (I haven't accused you of trolling, even though you keep turning my intent into something near opposite of what it actually says - nor do I intend to). Just stop. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong Delete: all in-universe, full of original research, not a single independant secondary source thus non-notable. Wikipedia articles are not made for a specific minority of fans, but for everyone, and notability is not defined according to the "intended audience", but by a set of criteria, established by the community, and which were precisely made to garantee that no article will be written exclusively for fans (hence the mandatory independant secondary sources). RobertMfromLI, if you want to write articles geared toward NGE/Anime/SF fans, I'm sure you'll find tons of fanwikis out there, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a fansite. And please, try to avoid misplaced comparisons between fictional technology and real world science.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have written zero anime articles, and plan on writing zero anime articles. Nor was I using real world stuff as a comparison - I was pointing out that another editor should not compare this article to others because such rationale was flawed for those same reasons you (and I) mentioned. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aids in the understanding of a very notable series. It revolutionized the industry, changing how anime was done. It has generated billions of dollars from the episodes, movies, games, and merchandising. There are books written about it [1] however you can easily confirm the definition in the primary source. If there is no possible reason to doubt the information in the primary source, then there is no reason not to use it(example: a celebrity might lie in their own biography about themselves, however a fictional character is not able to do so, all information about them there). Dream Focus 00:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- excessive plot summary and fan trivia. What little of this article is actually sourced to anything is sourced entirely to the works themselves and the rest is fan interpretation. The fact that a series is popular does not mean that a huge proliferation of crufty articles is OK, nor does it turn enthusiastic fan chatter into an encyclopedia article. Reyk YO! 00:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with dream focus. Unlike other Anime, this one actually requires you to read as much as you can find to understand what all the psychological and religious references are all about. Of course, if fan interpretation is the problem, then more facts would do it good. Usws (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to understand the psychological and religious references, everything is already in the main article, there is no need of a glossary since this article doesn't even mention any of these references. It is only about fictional technology which doesn't require any further reading. Usws, I think you don't even know what this article is about...Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article defines more than just the fictional technology, but other things as well. Understanding everything about it is important to understand the series. There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia for Neon Genesis Evangelion, as the template shows [2], and you don't need to keep redefining every single thing in each article that mentions something. A greater overall understanding of everything is listed here, in the glossary article. Dream Focus 15:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're wrong, this article is mostly about fictional technology and places/organizations that are tied to technology, so 100% trivial. And no, it is not important to understand "everything" to understand the series. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to replace the viewing of a show or to replicate the viewer's experience, they're not guidebooks to the show and thus aren't supposed to help readers "understand everything". The plot summary in the main Eva article is enough, as it already provides everything the readers need in one place. Not every single thing about the plot of Eva is worth mentionning. Besides, this AfD is not about readers understanding everything Eva-related, it is about the fact that this article blatantly violates at least 4 or 5 WP policies, and it will be deleted whether you like it or not.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
transfer to wikia I know that their is commentary on the symbolism of many of those terms. However, others - like the UN - I know there isn't anything meaningful. It isn't able to stand alone as a glossary, but perhaps an article for Symbolism of Neon Genesis Evangalion with that commentary could be created at a later point. There is some info here that should be WP:PRESERVED, but its also full of trival info and the article itself could not stand as it is as a glossary.陣内Jinnai 17:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already transferred it wikia, with its entire history. http://evangelion.wikia.com/wiki/Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_glossary but I still say its valuable as a resource of understanding here. Perhaps if someone just added a link to where this information could be found, that'd be an easy way to do this. Since yesterday I became one of the administrators at that wikia, I can not add the links myself, under the rules. Can someone do that in the main article please? Dream Focus 18:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of that information is irrelivant. The stuff on the UN is largely irrelivant because its basically describing what the UN and how it gets its military force (from member nations for specific operations). Antartica doesn't need its own description. You already have info on the First Impact elsewhere.
That's the problem when you don't have context for what is importantant. Things get out of control and you end up with something like this. A list of terms, some which are important to understanding the work and commented on, some which aren't and many which repeat plot info.[While it doesn't have to meet the WP:GNG since its a list, it still needs to meet WP:SALAT and a listing of terms for a franchise without context as to their relevance isn't good enough. If it were, I could come up with tens if not hundreds of such lists deserving to be created.陣内Jinnai 19:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, its already where it belongs, in the Neon Genesis Evangelion wikia, full history and all. [3]. No need shoving into a general holding area, when a proper place for it has been found. Dream Focus 09:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gwern, I don't see any bad faith in the nomination, on the contrary, it's very factual and written with good sense. I think you know very well that in notability issues, by "reliable sources" we mean independent secondary sources, ie sources that are not the show itself, and that are not tied to the show in anyway (ie databooks written by the authors/producers of the show). These sources could of course work very well among others, but to determine notability, we must see whether the subject has real-world coverage in general sources, otherwise it is restricted to the small world of the show itself and its fandom, and thus doesn't deserve an article on Wikipedia.
    I'm very surprised, and disappointed (given your efficiency in finding high-level academic sources), to see that you resort to an obscure wikitionary entry to defend obvious fancruft. Of course, I think you know that we absolutely don't need to have a definition for each term ever coined in the show. I think your know very well that most of it is trivial, obscure, and doesn't bring anything relevant to the academic/encyclopedic study of Evangelion. As an experienced contributor, you're certainly well aware that it is a plot-only approach, and that it should be avoided, since the plot summary in the main article already provides enough information to the readers (anything else would only matter to hardcore fans, and they have their own websites to deal with this kind of things). As for any other article you may think unnecessary, you're free to AfD it, as others are to AfD this one. But here, we're only talking about the glossary, anything else is irrelevant.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Folken, I see plenty of bad-faith. First, RS has not been redefined as 'independent secondary sources'; primary sources are reliable sources. Second, even if I had adopted this narrow definition, there are 2 independent secondary sources cited (Fujie & Broderick), and perhaps 3 or 4 depending on how you slice some of the others (NGE 2 & the Newtype books). Either way, the nom's description is flat out wrong and he either knew it (in which case he was lying) or he didn't read the article (bad faith for an AfD nominator).
As for sources, I cannot defend or improve anything until I know what might pass through the needle's eye. Protoculture Addicts devotes a dozen pages over 2 or 3 issues to covering Eva gear (eg pages ~24-29 of PA 39); but its source is the show and Newtype books tied to Gainax. So, is that an independent secondary source, showing notability, or is it a useless derivative? I feel sure that whatever it is, it won't help this article. --Gwern (contribs) 23:18 24 November 2010 (GMT)
Again, you're trying to justify an article by a different whether or not they meet the same quality or if the other articles are even notable themselves. If you want to play that game, we can AfD every article that you mention that doesn't meet the general notability guideline. No one here is comparing, only dream focus, and in fact it's being avoided. Mainly due to WP:OTHERSTUFF.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BN, I would be thrilled if you went and AfDed all the articles I mentioned. Let's get some clarity here, see what the Wikipedia community really thinks about these articles. (You want to improve Wikipedia - those articles are just as 'problematic'. Lay off the Eva articles for a while!) I suspect the community doesn't share the 'delete them all, Jimbo will know his own' view. --Gwern (contribs) 23:18 24 November 2010 (GMT)
You can AFDed those articles yourself, i could do it, but i rather focus on what i know best. And like a certain user has said, it's not whether how many votes there are, but how strong the reasoning is. One series at a time, and even then I'm focused on others. But NGE series needs serious work and leaving it alone wouldn't do any good. NGE articles are barely run by anyone. leaves enough time for certain users who get isolated in these forgotten articles think Wikipedia standards don't apply to them because no one out there to stop them. And i've seen it before many times. You probably aren't aware of it yourself, but that's the sort of thinking that gets into users when they themselves become consensus.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Writing here to avoid too long comment) Gwern, if there is bad faith here it is on your side. This is an AfD, we're not assessing the quality of the sourcing, but the notability, and the general notability guideline says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article [...] "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". As for sourcing in general, WP:RS says that "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." If you want to contribute to WP, you have to play by its rules. Also, we're trying to assess the general notability of the topic, and the secondary sources must be about the topic itself, not just about individual elements not directly pertaining to it ("Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail"). I don't see how sourcing the pronunciation of the word "Seele" to Broderick would make an Evangelion glossary notable. This info could actually be located anywhere and is not proving the need of a glossary. Same for the Fujie source, which only quotes dialogues to retrace one event in Adam's backstory. I see nothing here advocating for a glossary of each term (creatures, organization, places, concepts) ever coined by the show. Also, video games based on the show or databooks are not independent secondary sources, since both are directly tied to the show through licensing/sponsoring contracts, and/or authorial implication.
The nomination is not wrong in any way. Identify what would be wrong according to you, and say why it would be wrong by citing precise examples. Otherwise, your claims mean nothing. If the nom' was really wrong, I guess the majority of people here would have noticed it and would not have supported it. And accusing the nominator of "lying" is a blatant personnal attack, and this kind of behavior has nothing to do here (or anywhere else).
The Protoculture Addicts article to which you refer may appear to be a reliable source, but given the number of people who deem this kind of article non-notable, one source won't be enough, notability means significant coverage. In fact, even if we could find reliable sources, the problems of in-universe perspective and plot-only approach would remain.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A clear example of excessive detail that would only be interested by a very small group of dedicated fans. Reading though some of the "entries" I've noticed a large amount of original research and original synthesis and I strongly suspect that a lot of the content is simply made up by fans as well. Defining these "terms" does not actually help readers understand the contents of the main article or the plot summaries. This is the type of thing that typically belongs on a fansite, but not in an encyclopedia. —Farix (t | c) 15:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear to have proper sourcing (or potential). Also, if I'm not mistaken, the independent sources we're looking for should be reliable independent glossaries of the series, not just sources for individual terms. As Bread Ninja said, this just screams for trivia. If any content is ever needed from this article, then it can be unearthed by an admin or copied from Wikia. No reason to leave such a crufty target lying around. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no secondary sources. Terms have no currency outside the show. Abductive (reasoning) 12:28, 27 November 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_glossary&oldid=1138120856"