Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in Negima (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. Valley2 city ‽ 06:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Magic in Negima
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article barely survived AfD in January 2008 and since then nobody has done anything to help it despite the five cleanup tags dating from 2007, including "no references". The jist of the original AfD was that this article violates our policy on no original research. As it stands today, the article is ridden with original research, most of which can not be fixed using material on hand that isn't apropos of the source itself (first party sources). Under our verifiability policy, Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A quick browse through google, and google news shows a lack of reliable sources needed to back up the article, as per our policy WP:V. Also, the topic of Magic in Negima appears to not meet our notability guidelines, due to the absense of the topic's discussion in reliable, third-party sources. This follows apropos of WP:V as it's impossible to have a notable article on a topic which can not be verified.

In accordance with our deletion policy, this article should be deleted on four different grounds:
 * 1) It is an article which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources.
 * 2) It is an article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it has failed.
 * 3) It is an article whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline.
 * 4) Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia (see WP:NOT, and WP:NOTMANUAL)

Each of these in itself is a valid reason to delete this article and since it has already been given a chance to redeem itself over a year ago deletion seems like the only viable option to keep this article in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Them From  Space  04:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom 114.158.117.221 (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I keep my comment as per the first nomination. I do not care if it is deleted or not, the article was created purely because it was in the main article and that article became too long, I have it created just because consensus at the main page is this and I have followed the then discussion about the split.  but I hope that delete supporters do drop the WP:CRUFTCRUFT type of arguments.  The article has no WP:RS and WP:V to show notability, that is pretty much more than enough fact to delete it.  Also, I must remind the above anon user that AfD is not a vote. MythSearchertalk 07:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- per the excellent nomination. There's really nothing more to be said that Themfromspace hasn't. Reyk  YO!  11:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Remerge If it came from an article which has not been deleted, then send it back there. And have the editors on the presumably more active article deal with what material they by consensus choose to retain. Collect (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, again, per the excellent nom. A big ol' pile of WP:OR, essentially.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep Per WP:NOTAGAIN and WP:DEADLINE. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I would suggest you actually go improve it if you use the WP:DEADLINE arguement. You don't have to get it into great shape, you only need to fix the problems addressed. MythSearchertalk 13:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, again as per the superb nomination. Completely lays out all the extremely valid reasons for deletion. Remerging would be rididculous, as you'd simply move the issue to another article (regardless of how much content is merged). The WP:NOTAGAIN arguement against deletion is grasping at straws, a 14month delay is more then ample time between nominations, and the nomination is justified. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nominator as being unverifiable Lets  drink  Tea  15:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete on all the grounds given by the nominator. Remerging does not seem to be a good option, since this material does not belong in an encyclopedia (WP:NOTMANUAL). -- Crowsnest (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Last time, I argued a weak keep to give conerned editors the time to clean up the irrelevant material and so demonstrate the notability of the topic. This hasn't happened. Delete until such time as independent notability can be demonstrated. I recommend that concerned parties snag what useful and relevant material belongs in the main article (as in, a summary of this). —Quasirandom (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Complete fail as it was given time and again the opportunity to provide citations and RS references but nothing happened or at least no one wanted to do that kind of heavy work. --KrebMarkt 17:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, this article looks to be irredeemable. For those hoping the editors of the main article might take interest at all, you might as well not hold your breath - the article has been on my watchlist for months, and has received no significant editing (beyond really broad, basic cleanup) or talk page discussion in that time (and it definitely needs it). 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete In the first AfD, I recommended to transwiki this to the Anime Wikia. But that project appears to be pretty much dead. The original problems still remain, first and foremost is that there is not a single reliable, third-party source on the subject of the article. Second, this is still an excessive amount of plot detail with little real-world context, and what context there is is entirely original research. As for the IP's WP:NOTAGAIN argument, perhaps he/she should read the page before using it again. This nomination doesn't fall under WP:NOTAGAIN do to two factor. First, this is the second time the article was nominated for deletion. If this was like the eighth nomination, then WP:NOTAGAIN may have some legitimate bases, but not on a second nomination. Second, it has been well over a year since the first nomination. Again WP:NOTAGAIN is only a valid arguement if the previous nomination was a few days or a few weeks ago, but not a whole year. In fact, using WP:NOTAGAIN as the main reason to keep is itself a bad argument as detailed by WP:NOTAGAIN --Farix (Talk) 20:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article could be useful and interesting to those who are fans of the series.  Since all information comes from the manga, it needs no reference other than that.   D r e a m Focus  21:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Except there is nothing to say that it does all come from the manga, theres no references (noting the entire series doesn't count). The manga itself probably doesn't even go into that much detail (a similar thing happened with a related article). it's pure WP:OR, which is a legitimate reason to remove large quantitys of the content, even if the page stays. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was originally material from an appendix from book 4 and a few chapters after that. Someone added in the comparison at the beginning, still could be sourced from an official guide book(though all considered primary and is not really helping much) Then tons of random edit from various editors adding in WP:OR and I must say, it is really beyond repair.  If it is remerged, the only thing I would merge is maybe a sentence in the main article saying the detail magic system of this series could be found in the appendix of chapter X, Y, Z and book M, N, O. MythSearchertalk 04:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No article is beyond repair. Deletion should be done as a last resort.  If there was massive cleanup, the article written properly, would you agree that the topic has the right to exist?   D r e a m Focus  10:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are really convinced this is possible: go ahead and do it. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Crowsnest, get some real work done before asking what would happen if it is done. The same argument was given in almost all AfD discussions, but little actually got done.  Enough time have pass to prove the article actually keep getting worse.  If you can find WP:RS and WP:V to back the article up, I think most people would change to a keep consensus.  If not, then too bad, no matter how massive the clean up is, I don't think it is going to help in this situation without actual sources to prove its notability. MythSearchertalk 18:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per the well-worded nomination; no evidence of any notability whatsoever, fails WP:NOT. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 08:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Enough time was given to interested editors to fix the many problems, and now it's time to call the shots and admit it's not going to happen. (If someone steps up to prove me wrong, please allow userfication though.) – sgeureka t•c 15:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm a big fan of the manga, but I don't think anything in this article has any real-world notability. The appendicies of the manga volumes do often go into a lot of detail on the magic used in the series, but I doubt there would be any reliable third-party sources covering any of this information. Calathan (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Sephiroth BCR. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2009 (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.