Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Items and concepts in FLCL


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Items and concepts in FLCL

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Let me start by saying I'm a huge fan of FLCL, so this nomination is not related to my opinion.

The article is entirely unsourced original research. I proposed that it be merged with FLCL a few months ago, but the truth is that anything in this article that is both notable and verifiable is already in the FLCL article. The notability of the "items and concepts" is unclear (as far as I know, no academic publications have explored them). The only source for most of this information is the collective speculation of the authors -- even using the DVD commentaries wouldn't be acceptable for the intent of this page.

In order to convince me that this article should be kept, I would need to see that 1) these items and concepts are notable -- that they have been discussed in reliable sources in a manner that is not trivial, and 2) they can be proven to not simply be the interpretations of fans.  Leebo  T / C  18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.   --  Leebo   T / C  18:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The ideas on the page are direct observation from the series. It's mostly like "this and that happens here and there". I beleive it should be merged instead of deleted. When talking about a show, the show itself should be considered valid source. As for the DVD commentaries, I don't understand your point in saying it's not acceptable. Wilderns 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply The information is not just observations; a lot of it is original research -- interpretations of what the directors meant without a source to confirm that meaning. The information also needs to be notable, being info from FLCL doesn't make it notable. And what I meant about the DVD commentaries is that a lot of the DVD trivia is in the FLCL article, and it doesn't go this into depth with the symbolism.  Leebo  T / C  19:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Well, I wonder what makes something in a work of fiction "notable". Tjstrf pointed out the "possibility" (rotflol) of a reviewed academic paper delving into FLCL, but that's just too absurd. Something out of a Monty Python sketch. In browsing Wikipedia, it looks to me quite as much of a (sub)cultural reference library as a strictly academic reference. However, I'm nobody to ruin the game - if that is what's wanted, let's delete 90% of the ruddy thing, and only leave the "notable" stuff from reviewed scientific articles. 195.38.101.16 06:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes, if you read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you'll see that a lot of the articles on fiction (especially contemporary fiction) fall short of what is expected in a Wikipedia article. The idea is not to set the standard by what already exists and deal with it. Also, deleting 90% of the original research of fiction articles would not have any effect on the thousands and thousands of proper articles that don't deal with fiction. In short, the "(sub)cultural reference library" aspect is exactly the kind of thing this is aiming to clean up.  Leebo  T / C  10:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Well, one really can't argue with that. Do what thy oh so holy policies suggest, but as a user I fail to see how this would raise the "quality" of Wikipedia. But well, let's be thorough. In that spirit, why not delete all articles on anything but scientific theories and classical art (the kind that has an extensive base of academic papers debating it)? That would make Wikipedia just the best there is! Just defeats the whole purpose of having it on a web2 basis. Why not gather a bunch of professors to do the work for us. I quit. 195.38.101.16 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Putting aside the caustic sarcasm, did you read the link I put below: Wikipedia is not for plot summaries? I don't think one can make a case that this article is more than a plot summary. FLCL has an article. I'm not trying to get rid of that.  Leebo  T / C  04:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

FLCL was written to be purposefully vague, and it succeeded. There is no way to write an article explaining FLCL's meaning based solely on the work itself. (If FLCL ever becomes the subject of a reviewed academic paper or two that delved into the symbolism, then maybe we could write it.) A few parts, such as pieces of the section on N.O., should probably be merged to the main article. --tjstrf talk 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment 1 important point that I should have mentioned in my reason is that Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. The parts of this that are not original research are essentially summaries of stuff that happens, without much commentary.  Leebo  T / C  19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although in complex or lengthy series, it is often appropriate to devote a page to describing terminology or plot as part of the wider subject, this one not only fails to fulfill that function but is made up of Original Research.


 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination as unsourced original research. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 07:08Z 
 * Delete per nom and WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 13:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, pure trivia. Lankiveil 13:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Strong Keep. Just make more clear to readers as terminology that's alien to some is relevant to others. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. I speed read, and anyway, I think I voted to keep 50 articles, because it's a nice even number. Anyway, the main thing that I was seeing was that some people seemed to want to keep it, so as I prefer more articles to few, I thought those arguments seemed valid and I throw my lot with them. Regards, --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 20:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:ATT... Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete &mdash; has no place on the encyclopedia per WP:NOT, WP:WAF, WP:ATT, and so on. &mdash; Deckiller 18:19, 12 April 2007 (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.