872:"...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. --
372:
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
554:(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
284:. Knowledge 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:
371:
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
395:
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
Knowledge." What I'm seeing is that some people think the term itself just looks and sounds funny and everybody seems to be saying it,
470:
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
347:
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
549:
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.
326:
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
994:
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
633:
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
441:
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.
615:(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.
316:
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. β
918:
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.)
690:
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.
542:
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
428:
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
669:
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.
348:
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.
499:
522:
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
117:
995:
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.
396:
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.
376:
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
420:
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
288:. 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
280:
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:
577:: I would like to remind editors that an unsourced statement in an article does not equate to original research. It is unverified and so
90:
85:
164:
94:
722:
651:
145:
969:, very crufty - although would not object to it being given some time so that it can be transwikied to a more appropriate wiki.
77:
471:
you really want the article to be deleted, state the actual notability issue, like the policy page you have posted suggested.
17:
826:. For Knowledge, it is simply too much detail. It also doesn't have a single reliable third-party source, as required by
180:
No original research, all information previously researched and published in the manga itself (appendices in the back)
635:
129:
292:
part of your arguement, it got nothing to do with the deletion process, so either use a valid arguement, or go away.
942:"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge should not have an article on it."
890:
Volume 13, page 70 (Chapter 113 appendix) says, not exactly that, but close enough to keep it from being plagiarism.
318:
308:
250:
249:
Besides being a big piece of original research, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet that it's also fancruft. β
124:
I'm not sure how this got rated a B-class on the quality scale, as it suffers from an immense number of problems.
1019:
214:
56:
36:
1018:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
424:
instead, Like I said, I agree with the arguement of the question page may not be notable, but posting a simple
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
999:
973:
955:
937:
928:
905:
883:
863:
845:
827:
814:
795:
781:
752:
731:
700:
678:
660:
624:
607:
590:
567:
514:
475:
457:
436:
411:
388:
363:
340:
321:
311:
296:
272:
253:
241:
217:
192:
172:
154:
59:
168:
81:
924:
791:
715:
644:
586:
563:
510:
450:
404:
356:
138:
991:
429:
381:
267:
237:
211:
73:
65:
53:
327:
Dragons, and Shadow Run are mostly played "by the kids" 20 years later... On this bit of fancruft,
777:
748:
696:
674:
983:
951:
879:
841:
772:
as per
Quasirandom. Has anyone informed the appropriate project about the need for improvement?
417:
304:
538:
clean-up issues, not causes for deletion. "In-universe" also is not a cause to delete, but per
996:
472:
433:
385:
293:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
920:
810:
787:
710:
639:
582:
559:
506:
466:. First, it sounds very uncivil to just throw out one word. In that sense, it sounds like
443:
397:
349:
133:
901:
859:
740:
620:
603:
551:
336:
262:
233:
188:
970:
773:
744:
692:
670:
46:
consensus is leaning closely towards delete, but not strong enough for actual deletion
946:
874:
836:
831:
539:
527:
543:
535:
531:
229:
125:
940:
does require at least one reliable, third-party source. To quote from the policy,
111:
205:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
806:
523:
421:
893:
Powering up physical attacks is explicitly stated in volume 11 as a common use.
897:
855:
616:
599:
332:
184:
462:
That is why the discussion should be on notability instead of just one word:
128:, in-universe, no references, no notability outside of the context of the
854:
Actually, going over the article, I'd like you to point an example out.
183:
And few entries are notable outside their context in the first place.
1012:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
896:
But I'll have to check the
Vampirism and Canceller entries.
550:
What I would like to do is keep for the moment, notify the
823:
303:
Most of the time fancruft is far too unencyclopedic. See
107:
103:
99:
805:
There is absolutely no evidence of notability at all!
581:
original research, but that is not the same thing. β
500:
list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions
210:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
163:per nom (if not then, merge into the main article)
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
261:OR, fancruft, overly long, get it out of here. -
1022:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
982:, again, please go read the 6th section of
709:Which page says translations are not OR? --
498:: This debate has been included in the
329:I don't know enough to have an opinion
7:
534:problem. In any case, those are per
530:that they will), that dispenses the
228:This seems pretty cut and dry with
24:
380:as a deletion reason sounds like
830:. Also there is a great deal of
598:given Quasirrandom's comments.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1000:07:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
974:03:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
956:16:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
929:16:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
906:15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
884:15:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
864:15:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
846:12:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
815:08:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
796:14:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
782:03:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
753:04:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
732:04:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
701:04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
679:03:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
661:02:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
625:01:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
608:22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
591:20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
568:20:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
515:15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
476:05:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
458:21:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
437:07:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
412:22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
389:19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
364:22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
341:18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
322:17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
312:17:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
297:14:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
273:06:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
254:03:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
242:03:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
218:03:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
193:05:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
173:22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
155:02:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
60:07:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
636:Negima!: Magister Negi Magi
130:Negima!: Magister Negi Magi
1039:
1015:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
990:arguement fit into the
938:Knowledge:Verifiability
828:Knowledge:Verifiability
416:Please, you posted the
48:, therefore closing as
526:(and for the moment I
552:relevant Wikiproject
528:assume in good faith
558:for this program. β
986:and look how your
834:in the article. --
305:Knowledge:Fancruft
832:original research
517:
503:
271:
220:
1030:
1017:
727:
718:
713:
656:
647:
642:
536:editorial policy
504:
494:
454:
447:
408:
401:
360:
353:
265:
209:
207:
150:
141:
136:
115:
97:
34:
1038:
1037:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1020:deletion review
1013:
743:, like I said.
730:
723:
716:
711:
659:
652:
645:
640:
452:
445:
406:
399:
358:
351:
286:book appendices
212:Yamamoto Ichiro
203:
153:
146:
139:
134:
88:
74:Magic in Negima
72:
69:
66:Magic in Negima
54:Yamamoto Ichiro
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1036:
1034:
1025:
1024:
1007:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
932:
931:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
894:
891:
887:
886:
867:
866:
849:
848:
817:
800:
799:
798:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
735:
734:
720:
704:
703:
682:
681:
664:
663:
649:
628:
627:
610:
593:
571:
570:
519:
518:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
392:
391:
344:
343:
300:
299:
275:
256:
244:
222:
221:
208:
200:
199:
198:
197:
196:
175:
143:
122:
121:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1035:
1023:
1021:
1016:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1001:
998:
993:
992:WP:CRUFTCRUFT
989:
985:
981:
978:
977:
975:
972:
968:
965:
964:
957:
953:
949:
948:
943:
939:
936:
935:
934:
933:
930:
926:
922:
917:
916:
915:
914:
907:
903:
899:
895:
892:
889:
888:
885:
881:
877:
876:
871:
870:
869:
868:
865:
861:
857:
853:
852:
851:
850:
847:
843:
839:
838:
833:
829:
825:
821:
818:
816:
812:
808:
804:
801:
797:
793:
789:
786:I have now. β
785:
784:
783:
779:
775:
771:
768:
767:
754:
750:
746:
742:
739:
738:
737:
736:
733:
728:
726:
719:
714:
708:
707:
706:
705:
702:
698:
694:
689:
686:
685:
684:
683:
680:
676:
672:
668:
667:
666:
665:
662:
657:
655:
648:
643:
637:
632:
631:
630:
629:
626:
622:
618:
614:
611:
609:
605:
601:
597:
594:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
573:
572:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
548:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
520:
516:
512:
508:
501:
497:
493:
492:
477:
474:
469:
465:
461:
460:
459:
456:
455:
449:
448:
440:
439:
438:
435:
431:
430:WP:CRUFTCRUFT
427:
423:
419:
415:
414:
413:
410:
409:
403:
402:
394:
393:
390:
387:
383:
379:
375:
370:
367:
366:
365:
362:
361:
355:
354:
346:
345:
342:
338:
334:
331:(see below).
330:
325:
324:
323:
320:
315:
314:
313:
310:
306:
302:
301:
298:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
276:
274:
269:
264:
260:
257:
255:
252:
248:
245:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
224:
223:
219:
216:
213:
206:
202:
201:
194:
190:
186:
182:
181:
179:
176:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
158:
157:
156:
151:
149:
142:
137:
131:
127:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1014:
1011:
1006:
997:MythSearcher
987:
979:
966:
945:
941:
873:
835:
819:
802:
769:
724:
687:
653:
612:
595:
578:
574:
555:
546:
495:
473:MythSearcher
467:
463:
451:
444:
434:MythSearcher
425:
405:
398:
386:MythSearcher
377:
373:
368:
357:
350:
328:
294:MythSearcher
289:
285:
281:
277:
258:
246:
225:
204:
177:
165:132.205.44.5
160:
147:
123:
50:no consensus
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
988:very crufty
984:WP:FANCRUFT
921:Quasirandom
788:Quasirandom
638:article? --
583:Quasirandom
579:potentially
560:Quasirandom
507:Quasirandom
418:WP:fancruft
319:LADY GALAXY
309:LADY GALAXY
251:LADY GALAXY
824:Anime wiki
547:in English
432:category.
422:notability
382:cruftcruft
268:Talk to me
263:Realkyhick
234:Rubydanger
971:Lankiveil
820:Transwiki
774:Edward321
745:Doceirias
693:Doceirias
671:Edward321
596:Weak Keep
556:weak keep
132:article.
741:WP:NOTOR
725:contribs
654:contribs
464:fancruft
426:fancruft
378:fancruft
374:fancruft
290:fancruft
282:fancruft
148:contribs
118:View log
822:to the
717:Penguin
688:Comment
646:Penguin
575:Comment
278:Comment
259:Delete,
140:Penguin
91:protect
86:history
967:Delete
807:NBeale
803:Delete
540:WP:WAF
524:verify
453:Galaxy
407:Galaxy
359:Galaxy
247:Delete
226:Delete
161:Delete
95:delete
980:Reply
947:Farix
898:SAMAS
875:Farix
856:SAMAS
837:Farix
617:SAMAS
600:Hobit
544:WP:RS
532:WP:OR
369:Reply
333:Hobit
230:WP:OR
185:SAMAS
126:WP:OR
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
952:Talk
925:talk
902:talk
880:Talk
860:talk
842:Talk
811:talk
792:talk
778:talk
770:Keep
749:talk
712:Nick
697:talk
675:talk
641:Nick
621:talk
613:Keep
604:talk
587:talk
564:talk
511:talk
496:Note
468:junk
446:Lady
400:Lady
352:Lady
337:talk
307:. β
238:talk
189:talk
178:Keep
169:talk
135:Nick
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
502:.
384:.
116:β (
976:.
954:)
944:--
927:)
904:)
882:)
862:)
844:)
813:)
794:)
780:)
751:)
699:)
677:)
623:)
606:)
589:)
566:)
513:)
505:ββ
339:)
240:)
232:.
215:δΌθ©±
191:)
171:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
57:δΌθ©±
52:.
950:(
923:(
919:β
900:(
878:(
858:(
840:(
809:(
790:(
776:(
747:(
729:)
721:(
695:(
673:(
658:)
650:(
619:(
602:(
585:(
562:(
509:(
335:(
270:)
266:(
236:(
195:.
187:(
167:(
152:)
144:(
120:)
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.