Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in Negima

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 consensus is leaning closely towards delete, but not strong enough for actual deletion, therefore closing as no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magic in Negima

Magic in Negima (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I'm not sure how this got rated a B-class on the quality scale, as it suffers from an immense number of problems. WP:OR, in-universe, no references, no notability outside of the context of the Negima!: Magister Negi Magi article. NickPenguin(contribs) 02:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom (if not then, merge into the main article) 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep No original research, all information previously researched and published in the manga itself (appendices in the back)
    • And few entries are notable outside their context in the first place. SAMAS (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This seems pretty cut and dry with WP:OR. Rubydanger (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Besides being a big piece of original research, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet that it's also fancruft. ― LADY GALAXY 03:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, OR, fancruft, overly long, get it out of here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It is very funny that most of the AfD of these kind of articles will receive delete supporters stating one common thing as their main arguement: fancruft. Wikipedia never stated anything about not inculding fancruft, as long as it is not OR, well sourced and got enough notability. About the note of OR, this page have no problem of OR, it is just lacking secondary sources. All of the quotes are extracted directly from the appendix of the book itself, and only need a common source: book appendices. I have no comment on the notability, and does not care if it got deleted. However, if you are going to ask for a delete on the page, drop the fancruft part of your arguement, it got nothing to do with the deletion process, so either use a valid arguement, or go away. MythSearchertalk 14:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of the time fancruft is far too unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Fancruft. ― LADY GALAXY 17:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, if long articles about spells and such things that go on in a fictional game world are your cup of tea and what the kids will be reading about twenty years from now in books, go ahead. I don't think everyone will agree with you, though. ― LADY GALAXY 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with Mythsearcher. Lady Galaxy is right, fancruft is often not notable. But sometimes it is, so just saying "fancruft" is pretty worthless. And oddly the "kids" 20 years later are still dealing with spells and things that go on in fictional game worlds. World of Warcraft, Dungeons and Dragons, and Shadow Run are mostly played "by the kids" 20 years later... On this bit of fancruft, I don't know enough to have an opinion (see below). Hobit (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but you're completely missing the point here. We say it when we're discussing an article that's not notable. Obviously if the fancruft was of the good kind, why would everyone be tossing in their vote for it as a reason why it should be deleted. About this "fictional world", hm could it have anything to do with the fact that those kids are now tearing up Compton and robbing cars? (Let's not mention welfare!) Even if they're not, they're still at home with Mommy and Daddy. Lady Galaxy 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply I don't think this particular article is very productive and notable, the series seems to be very popular, but it is mainly just duplication of the back of a series of book appendices, and is really not that useful in telling others how the magic in that series is like, since people who read the book or watched the anime will know, and they will have their hands on the book anyway. People who did not read the book will have no idea with only a butch of spells of latin words and have no use in them. I posted my comment just out of my own speculation on wikipedia AfDs about people starting to place things that are not official rules like a simple fancruft accusation as deletion reason, which from my point of view, degraded wikipedia's as a simple vote instead of trying to talk things out. BTW, leaving just fancruft as a deletion reason sounds like cruftcruft. MythSearchertalk 19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is a simple way of trying to talk things out. It's basically, "Nice if you're a fan, but to be honest, this piece of work just can't and doesn't fit in with Wikipedia." What I'm seeing is that some people think the term itself just looks and sounds funny and everybody seems to be saying it, so they try to pass it off as, "Well, that's just mainstream fluff." There must be a reason everybody's saying it. If it doesn't fit, it just doesn't fit. Lady Galaxy 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, you posted the WP:fancruft page, please be familiar with it. In that page, section 6, it is specifically stated that the word should not be used in AfDs, the main focus should be notability instead, Like I said, I agree with the arguement of the question page may not be notable, but posting a simple fancruft comment is not a valid arguement since there are notable fancruft. the reason you see a lot of people are using it is because most of them are not aware of that point, and is falling into the WP:CRUFTCRUFT category. MythSearchertalk 07:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but what I'm saying is that they're saying it's fancruft because they think it is. Obviously if they thought it was good fancruft that belonged here, they wouldn't have bothered to comment in the first place. Or they'd comment saying that it is good fancruft and should be kept. Lady Galaxy 21:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
That is why the discussion should be on notability instead of just one word: fancruft. First, it sounds very uncivil to just throw out one word. In that sense, it sounds like junk to the keep party and is almost an insult. Second, it just blocks all of the discussion between deleters and keepers since there seems to be no discussion grounds, once the deleters said it is fancruft, usually they don't come back to discuss since they see no point in doing so on such topic. If you really want the article to be deleted, state the actual notability issue, like the policy page you have posted suggested. MythSearchertalk 05:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oy, but that thing needs major cleanup and wikifying. It could also use more explicit sourcing -- that is, referencing which appendix each bit is from. Assuming those references verify (and for the moment I assume in good faith that they will), that dispenses the WP:OR problem. In any case, those are per editorial policy clean-up issues, not causes for deletion. "In-universe" also is not a cause to delete, but per WP:WAF a reason to clean it up. Which leaves the issue of notability -- whether these are notable outside the context of the series. After a bit of poking about with Google, I confess I'm not finding WP:RS in English to that suggest that it is, yet, but I do see enough interest in the magic system of the series (not at Harry Potter levels of interest, but interest nontheless) that it's possible I'm not finding them. Also, I don't read Japanese, and cannot tell if there's anything behind that language barrier. What I would like to do is keep for the moment, notify the relevant Wikiproject (currently on a big cleanup push) that this is in need of expert attention and sourcing, and if nothing comes of it, revisit for deletion in, say, two months. My only hesitation here is that it's been marked for cleanup (without notifying the Wikiproject) for two month, which means a good faith notice has already been given, making this a weak keep for this program. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would like to remind editors that an unsourced statement in an article does not equate to original research. It is unverified and so potentially original research, but that is not the same thing. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep given Quasirrandom's comments. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (in case the first one doesn't count): I dispute the Original Research charge. Most of the information given for the spells is outlined, researched (Word origins similarities in casting words, and the like), and described in appendices in the back of the manga volumes themselves. SAMAS (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe all of this is written in the manga appendices, I don't know, but at the very least I think all of the English translations of the Japanese spells would be OR. The biggest problem is the in-universe style; after a serious cleanup, what content would be left that isn't already in the Negima!: Magister Negi Magi article? --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That would only be OR if a fan had created the English translations. In this case, the info, like the whole of the manga is being translated by the American publisher in their publications. Edward321 (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Translations are not, by definition, OR. Read the Not OR page. The issue needs to be decided on the basis of notability, not sourcing for the spell translations. That can be argued about by people with the necessary Japanese ability. Doceirias (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Which page says translations are not OR? --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Quasirandom. Has anyone informed the appropriate project about the need for improvement? Edward321 (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    I have now. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete There is absolutely no evidence of notability at all! NBeale (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to the Anime wiki. For Wikipedia, it is simply too much detail. It also doesn't have a single reliable third-party source, as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also there is a great deal of original research in the article. --Farix (Talk) 12:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, going over the article, I'd like you to point an example out. SAMAS (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "...indicating the two spells are equal in level and require the invocation of spiritual being that the caster made contract with." "One of the most basic attack spells, but also very versatile." "Some mages, particularly combat mages, will also use the Sagitta Magica to enhance the power of their close combat attacks." "These sets of spells always seem" And finally, the entire "Magic Vampirism" and "Magic Canceller" sections. --Farix (Talk) 15:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Volume 13, page 70 (Chapter 113 appendix) says, not exactly that, but close enough to keep it from being plagiarism.
Powering up physical attacks is explicitly stated in volume 11 as a common use.
But I'll have to check the Vampirism and Canceller entries. SAMAS (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, for in-universe information like this, primary sources such as series appendices are valid sources for verifying the information. (Third-party info is, of course, required to confirm notability, but that is a different matter.) —Quasirandom (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Verifiability does require at least one reliable, third-party source. To quote from the policy, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --Farix (Talk) 16:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, very crufty - although would not object to it being given some time so that it can be transwikied to a more appropriate wiki. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 03:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC).
    • Reply, again, please go read the 6th section of WP:FANCRUFT and look how your very crufty arguement fit into the WP:CRUFTCRUFT page. If it is not notable, say so and say why it is not. Certain fancrufts has their notability, it is not a good thing to use it as an arguement when supporting a delete status. I agree that this particular article might not be notable due to its culture impact is not very great and would probably be very hard to find a third party source, however, THIS IS EXACTLY what this AfD discussion should focus on, NOT the article is fancruft or not. MythSearchertalk 07:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


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.