Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gungrave 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   redirect, encyclopedic content can be merged into the main Gungrave page or rewritten.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Gungrave Terminology

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Confusing, unreferenced, WP:OR and excessive in-universe plot details. Not even sure where half this came from, since it doesn't appear in the Gungrave anime at all. Maybe a bad blend of video game and anime, but Wikipedia is not a game guide and it doesn't belong here. Collectonian (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   —Collectonian (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For a more applicable argument, "Terminology of X" pages, while they've often historically been created to gather in universe information that would otherwise be scattered across multiple pages (especially in the case of video games), are currently considered a lousy way to structure in universe content, because they are non-conducive to expansion with any sort of real world information. An alternative that has been successfully used in the past would be the creation of a Gungrave (series) article that can bring together in and out of universe information on the series as a whole, allowing clear presentation and providing grounds for expansion and easier assertion of notability. So I guess my vote goes to restructure. --erachima talk 06:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a game guide. Game guide is a complaint accurately applied only to articles which provide FAQ-type info and tell you how to beat a game, in violation of WP:NOT.
 * Comment Actually, I notice a lot of the length comes from covering characters. Given that there is no Characters in Gungrave, that would be another possible way of reorganizing the pages, either instead or in addition to a series page. --erachima talk 06:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A game guide includes minute details about a video game, including extensive background information and terminology summaries, not just an FAQ on how to beat a game. Collectonian (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. See game guide. What you are describing is a different problem related to writing about fiction in general, not specifically writing about games. --erachima talk 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. erachima talk 06:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with what seems to be erachima's point, which is that the suite of articles on the Gungrave franchise are not optimally organized: articles on Gungrave (series) and List of Gungrave characters would seem to be in order, along with other reorganizations and merges. I'm hesitant to delete this information outright, for while it doesn't stand on its own (and, yeah, needs hella editing), it seems likely to have a place in an article with larger context. Exactly what context, though, I cannot say in advance. Would the nominator be amenable to withdrawing the nomination for a while, as editors reorganize things, and if a merge target isn't found after a while, bringing it back later? I would support a deletion at that time, if sourcing for notability isn't found. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no List of Gungrave characters, however Gungrave (anime) has a lengthy character section, as does Gungrave (video game). Gungrave: Overdose is nothing but a character article. Beyond The Grave and Harry MacDowell both have individual articles (in-universe filled, but they exist). Point being, anything in the terminology list of relevance to either video game or the anime should already be sufficiently covered in all that somewhere.  I'm not sure a series article is needed. Despite the list saying its a "meta-series" its only two video games with one anime. Collectonian (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to List of major character in Gungrave List of Gungrave characters or some similarly named article after some reorganization. In response to other comments, I do not believe there is any guideline defining what is and is not a game guide.  If the entire article is a guide to in-universe aspects of the game, then I'd say "game guide" is a reasonable conclusion.  But that's not really the point, and there is not much use in arguing such minutia.  It is an in-depth collection of in-universe information with no criteria for inclusion.  The problem I see isn't WP:GUIDE, it's WP:PLOT.  It would be nice if the article contained more information about how the elements present in the Gungrave video game compare and contrast to those in the anime.  Obviously real world info (character design/development details, character analysis/critique from Reputable Sources, etc.) would be an ideal contribution (Curious.  I only ever knew about the anime.  I didn't know it was a video game first until coming across this AfD.) -Verdatum (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If it were going to be renamed, the correct name would be List of Gungrave characters or Characters of Gungrave if there was going to be a focus on development and reception rather than just a list of characters. (I didn't know on the video game either...I thougth the anime had come first :P) Collectonian (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, so edited. -Verdatum (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to List of Gungrave characters, and perform heavy cleanup to remove all the extraneous plot details and make it less in-universe and more in line with WP:WAF. Per Quasirandom, a series page is probably in order also. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 06:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gungrave. All of the content is beyond any independent reliable sources.  Interested contributors should read WP:WAF.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom's analysis of the article. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect so that editors can access and merge useful information in the future. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  23:33, 3 May 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.