413:. I never edited the article myself, and have no inclination to do so, and user-fying articles shouldn't be just for creating archives (trans-wiking, perhaps). Also calling it unverifiable and unreferenced is incorrect. This is one of my pet peeves back from the original fiction wars of 2007; it's all easily verifiable and referenced - to the primary source. Which IS a problem, but a slightly different one. As usual, you'd want independent sources to prove notability, but something like a glossary inherently wants to be referenced largely to primary sources anyway. And why merge? For the obvious reason, to make the merged article better and Knowledge's coverage more comprehensive - a glossary is entirely relevant for subjects with a lot of jargon. And even if very little was merged, then history is at least preserved rather than tossed down the memory hole. We obviously differ in our estimations of how valuable this content is, but don't pretend like it's a mystery why others would want to preserve it in some form.
328:? Based on a spot check of a few of the terms, it seems not very much as very few are even used, and the few that are can be explained in its context. That means at the very least, the list is excessive plot details that would just confuse a reader unfamiliar with the series. A list of terms should not exist for the sake of having a list of terms. So I will have to side with
532:
Sheesh. Did you notice that I merged all of one sentence, and that
Knowledge is not largely different whether there is a redirect preserving the history for ease of transwiki / future reference? You've "won" if that's what you're worried about. It's not uncommon to leave histories behind, however,
480:
No, merges in the middle of AfDs happen all the time. And the debate was about to be closed, anyway, so that was hardly "in the middle." That said, sure, will leave it up to the closer (but a merge is literally harmless unless you absolutely insist on purifying all traces
Knowledge of evil fancruft
377:
SnowFire, why should we merge unreferenced, unverifiable content into another article in main space? We don't keep material because it is "harmless" but instead because the material is verifiable and encyclopedic. If you are so interested, why not userfy the content instead of merging, so that you
551:
In the DNC Imam article, an editor completed rewrote the article. You said that you redirected this page (which doesn't mean merge, it means redirecting without changing the target article. If you want to change the direction of this discussion, rescue the page with verifyable material and see if
359:
if it gets too long. However, fair enough that
Knowledge has trended against this kind of thing; just no need to delete the page - merge & redirect it so history is not lost. I'll do it myself if nobody else particularly objects (but, unless the page is a copyvio or something, I can't see a
434:. I redirected the article. Not as much to merge as expected, but it's possible a bit more might be mergable in the future, so please leave the history. (I'll close this myself if nothing happens for a bit, but will hold off in case an admin really wants to delete rather than merge.)
533:
when there's a potential of later improvement, or even just reference (all those
Knowledge pages with "This is inactive but retained for historical reference"). All it takes is one request, since the result is still no article afterward pending a rewrite. Look at
81:
174:
76:
168:
108:
103:
386:, then it doesn't belong on Knowledge. So, if you find reliable, independent sources and add them to a draft in your sandbox, you can bring the improved material back to main space.
112:
285:
95:
534:
452:
You should not be redirecting the article somewhere else in the middle of an AfD discussion. Expectantly when no one else has supported the merge/redirect to begin with. —
135:
234:
discuss the unique terminology of this fictional work in depth. Current article is unreferenced, so should be deleted unless specific references are identified.
568:
546:
511:
490:
467:
443:
422:
401:
369:
347:
314:
294:
276:
249:
221:
60:
205:
I don't thing a glossary of terms in a fictional works is in the scope of
Knowledge. As it exists, the page also fails to assert any real-world significance.
302:
189:
156:
261:, in that many of the entries are editors' own interpretations and speculations when the primary source doesn't state these things explicitly.
150:
146:
99:
17:
463:
343:
196:
355:. I honestly think these glossaries are harmless and a reasonable part of an article - which can then be spun off due to
91:
66:
332:
this list. Not only do these terms have no real world context, they also don't have any in-universe context either. —
162:
591:
36:
590:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
537:
for an example that actually was saved by one merge vote vs. a ton of deletes, and is still an article today.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
563:
506:
216:
394:
324:
242:
182:
553:
542:
496:
486:
459:
439:
418:
365:
339:
206:
356:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
310:
290:
387:
269:
235:
51:
538:
482:
454:
435:
414:
361:
334:
379:
258:
231:
129:
383:
322:
How important is defining these terms when it comes to reading the articles on
495:
But this one is not likely to close as merge. Most people have said delete.
262:
82:
Articles for deletion/List of terms in The Twelve
Kingdoms (2nd nomination)
257:- This is an unsourced list of fictional trivia. Much of it seems to be
584:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
77:
Articles for deletion/List of terms in The Twelve
Kingdoms
552:
people will change their mind. Merging will not do that.
382:
that discuss this content at your leisure? If it's not
125:
121:
117:
181:
535:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/DNC imam controversy
286:
list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions
360:good reason not to do at least a minimal merge.)
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
594:). No further edits should be made to this page.
195:
8:
301:Note: This debate has been included in the
284:Note: This debate has been included in the
303:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
300:
283:
74:
481:including the article history, etc.)
7:
92:List of terms in The Twelve Kingdoms
67:List of terms in The Twelve Kingdoms
73:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
569:02:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
547:01:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
512:22:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
491:15:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
468:10:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
444:05:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
423:02:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
61:07:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
230:Unless it can be shown that
402:05:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
370:04:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
348:01:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
315:22:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
295:22:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
277:21:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
250:05:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
222:04:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
611:
587:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
72:AfDs for this article:
325:The Twelve Kingdoms
44:The result was
561:
504:
317:
306:
297:
259:original research
214:
59:
602:
589:
566:
559:
558:
509:
502:
501:
399:
397:Let's discuss it
391:
380:reliable sources
307:
267:
247:
245:Let's discuss it
239:
232:reliable sources
219:
212:
211:
200:
199:
185:
133:
115:
58:
56:
49:
34:
610:
609:
605:
604:
603:
601:
600:
599:
598:
592:deletion review
585:
564:
554:
507:
497:
395:
389:
378:can search for
273:
263:
243:
237:
217:
207:
142:
106:
90:
87:
70:
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
608:
606:
597:
596:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
473:
472:
471:
470:
447:
446:
428:
427:
426:
425:
405:
404:
372:
350:
319:
318:
298:
280:
279:
271:
252:
203:
202:
139:
86:
85:
84:
79:
71:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
607:
595:
593:
588:
582:
570:
567:
562:
557:
550:
549:
548:
544:
540:
536:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
513:
510:
505:
500:
494:
493:
492:
488:
484:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
469:
465:
461:
457:
456:
451:
450:
449:
448:
445:
441:
437:
433:
430:
429:
424:
420:
416:
412:
409:
408:
407:
406:
403:
400:
398:
393:
392:
385:
381:
376:
373:
371:
367:
363:
358:
357:summary style
354:
351:
349:
345:
341:
337:
336:
331:
327:
326:
321:
320:
316:
313:
312:
304:
299:
296:
293:
292:
287:
282:
281:
278:
275:
274:
268:
266:
260:
256:
253:
251:
248:
246:
241:
240:
233:
229:
226:
225:
224:
223:
220:
215:
210:
198:
194:
191:
188:
184:
180:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
144:Find sources:
140:
137:
131:
127:
123:
119:
114:
110:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
88:
83:
80:
78:
75:
68:
65:
63:
62:
57:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
586:
583:
555:
498:
453:
431:
410:
396:
388:
374:
353:Strong merge
352:
333:
329:
323:
309:
289:
270:
264:
254:
244:
236:
227:
208:
204:
192:
186:
178:
171:
165:
159:
153:
143:
53:
45:
43:
31:
28:
311:Philosopher
291:Philosopher
169:free images
565:Talk to me
508:Talk to me
384:verifiable
218:Talk to me
54:Sandstein
556:D O N D E
499:D O N D E
209:D O N D E
560:groovily
539:SnowFire
503:groovily
483:SnowFire
436:SnowFire
415:SnowFire
362:SnowFire
330:deleting
213:groovily
136:View log
432:Comment
411:Comment
175:WP refs
163:scholar
109:protect
104:history
390:Cullen
255:Delete
238:Cullen
228:Delete
147:Google
113:delete
46:delete
455:Farix
375:Reply
335:Farix
190:JSTOR
151:books
130:views
122:watch
118:links
16:<
543:talk
487:talk
440:talk
419:talk
366:talk
288:. --
265:Reyk
183:FENS
157:news
126:logs
100:talk
96:edit
272:YO!
197:TWL
134:– (
545:)
489:)
466:)
462:|
442:)
421:)
368:)
346:)
342:|
305:.
177:)
128:|
124:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
48:.
541:(
485:(
464:c
460:t
458:(
438:(
417:(
364:(
344:c
340:t
338:(
308:—
201:)
193:·
187:·
179:·
172:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
149:(
141:(
138:)
132:)
94:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.