Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toaru Majutsu no Index 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. Cirt (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toaru Majutsu no Index terminology

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Toaru Majutsu no Index terminology (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)

List of terminologies from a comic series. Not eligible for CSD, but not suitable for inclusion.

• Keep: I created this page for easy access to visitors as does the section of characters. Also the number of terms is long and the principal article kept to much space.Wilfriback (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC) — Wilfriback (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would question whether a terminology section is really needed. Most of the terms are not required to understand the article or the work, are mostly trivia, and the terms that may require explanation can be covered with a quick description when they are first used per

WP:JARGON. —Farix (t | c) 15:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

If you watched some forums or blogs, you are going to notice that many people didn't understood at all the exposition in the series and complains about it.Wilfriback (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Wikipedia job to explain fictional terminology beyond what is need for a reader, who may be unfamiliar with the work, to understand the article about the work of fiction. —Farix (t | c) 02:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the reason why a article like "terminology" here or in the main page shouldn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Lero (talk • contribs) 03:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I agree with wilfriback, to aru majutsu no index must have its own page of terminology, the series has too key words and the page will very helpful for many people who doesn't have the enough knowledge of the novels. Second, T.A.M.N.I is a light novel, not a comic series. Pipe-G (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)— Pipe-G (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Why must Index have to have its own terminology page? You stated that there are only two key terms, but don't say which two terms, out of the 27 terms on the page, are important or why they cannot be quickly described in the main article while. —Farix (t | c) 15:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Pipe-G tried to say "too many key words" not "two key words". —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Lero (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 February 18 2010 (UTC)

• Keep but rename to
  List of Dune terminology, List of My-HiME terminology, and other term and terminology lists. --Sxerks (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Whether other articles like it exists for other series is not a valid reason to keep this article. (

WP:NOTPLOT. —Farix (t | c) 11:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge or Delete Merge it back to the original article and reduce some of the cruft or just delete it; either way, there's no reason for this article to stay like this. And there's precedence like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Shakugan no Shana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of D.Gray-man terms, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of InuYasha terms (2nd nomination). --十八 05:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have precedence. And major series that span multiple media do have articles just like this. Saying something is cruft, is the same as the

WP:Idon'tlikeit argument. Dream Focus 06:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Precedence is completely valid if established by consensus, which AfDs have.

u|c 14:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Shouldn't merge it back and must be deleted all because goes against copyrights. The Lero (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is important for understanding the series. The series contains an ongoing light novel, two ongoing mangas, and two anime, one of which is still ongoing. Dream Focus 06:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to wiktionary as a fiction appendix 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Here Does not assert why it should have a spin-out article aside from the main one. You want a spin out article of on that subject bring out evidences that it can hold it own against any article that passed the inclusion guidelines. Unfortunately the evidences are not here. More important is degree Zero of sourcing in this article leaving the door open to "Original Research" and other "Fan made Speculations and Comments". Being informative is insufficient, my local market prices are also informative. By a strict reading of Verifiability policy much of this article can be removed because it's simply unverified. Bottom line, a chunk of unverified text, written in fan oriented tone and style that fail to assert it relevance inside Wikipedia. --KrebMarkt 08:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Terminology should generally be explained when it's used in a plot summary as it is needed to better understand the work. (
  original research. —Farix (t | c) 11:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment I also like to note that most of the "terminology", 18 out of the 27, really aren't terms at all, but factions and settings. And some of the remaining terms, such as magic users and power users, the latter used only briefly at the beginning, don't need any explanation at all. That leaves only 7 terms, which can easily be explained elsewhere in the main article. That is why I say a lot of this is just thrown a bunch of things up against a wall hoping that it would stick. —Farix (t | c) 18:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Farix, if this article had the references and more out of universe info in it I would have more of a change of heart - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can tell, everything of importance is already adequately defined in the main article, either in passing or somewhat awkwardly in a definition list (that one hopes will eventually get cleaned up). A brief search does not find any sources suggesting that the terminology of the series, either as a whole or individual entries, is not a topic of discussion, not even on fan forums -- which suggests to me that the topic of this list is not
  notable in itself. All of which adds up to delete until such time as out-of-universe information, hopefully actual criticism/reviewage, can be found. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: The "terminology" shouldn't be spread because this is a form of violation against the copyrights of the original media, if you want to share them, websites like the wikia can be used for this purpose. Therefore all information about the original material either anime or novels must be removed and deleted from this site to not go against the rules and copyrights. Finally, if someone want to know about the plot surrounding this series looking at forums or do it directly through the original material because that is not the purpose of this website. So I request that all the terminology from here and the main article to be removed as soon as possible.The Lero (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC) — The Lero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What in the ten thousand hells are you babbling about? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Talking about a work does not violate the copyright of the work -- after all, it's not a copy of the work. Otherwise, reviews would be illegal. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Totally in universe,
  WP:OR and no attempt to demonstrate why this is notable information by wiki standard. it might make a nice page on a fansite, but it's unlikely to become a suitable wiki article.Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep: This series does not only have fictional terminology, its author grabs and applies to the world created a lot of Religious, Scientific and Technical terms. It also uses magic items and tales that are common to other works. An article like this one could help those who want a better insight on them, would be too long to put in the main page and by no means is against the Copyrights.--KilleyV (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC) — KilleyV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I've already explained why 90% present of the terms are completely unnecessary, as they are factions within the work and can be explained when that part of the story line is described or are very broad contests, such a magic users and power users. The remaining 3 or so terms can be easily summarized when the terms are first used. That is if the terms are used at all in the other articles on the series. —Farix (t | c) 12:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people believe most Wikipedia articles are unnecessary, and those that should exist should be trimmed down to have as little information as possible. This article increases the understanding of the series. If you don't like it, then you aren't likely to ever find it anyway, and nothing gained by deleting it. Dream Focus 13:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Careful there DF, that is a borderline accusation of

bad faith of those who support the list's deletion. But some editors do believe that Wikipedia should cover the most trivial subjects, even if the subject is not supported by reliable sources much less third-party sources. But I have seen the series, currently following Railgun, and I can state that this terminology list doesn't add anything to the main article. —Farix (t | c) 13:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Same for me, currently at To Aru Kagaku no Railgun Ep 19. --KrebMarkt 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The terms were took from the japanesse wiki and from the light novels of Toaru Majutsu no Index some of them after the Index season.Wilfriback (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese language Wikipedia is no more authoritative or reliable as the English language Wikipedia. On top of that, the Japanese language Wikipedia has some rather low, if not non-existent, inclusion standards. So its existence there has not relevance here, beyond what they give as sources. —Farix (t | c) 17:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bemused "same" for me, although I only watched To Aru Majutsu no Index and really should pick up Railgun. Too much to do... — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is
  WP:ORness of this list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete I agree, there is no sources and as collectonian said, unnecessary glossary is not needed.
  talk) 16:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete none of this is encyclopedic, or can be independently sourced. There is no hope that any of this will ever have any real world context at all. Ridernyc (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  plot information, cruft. Pointless and unnecessary article. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete see
  talk) 14:34, 23 February 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.