Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plotline of Neon Genesis Evangelion


 * 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.  

Plotline of Neon Genesis Evangelion
The result was DELETE/MERGE. I have userfied the article at User:Gwern/Plotline of Neon Genesis Evangelion. Would those interested in salvaging info, please use that page to merge content into the corresponding articles. While wikipedia is a unique medium, it shouldn't be simply a plot summary. I believe because WP:NOT specifically has this as an example makes the delete comments all the more persuasive. While it is acknowledged that editors did put time and effort into this article, I cannot deny that we are primarily an encyclopedia, and we must have concise, encyclopedic information. I believe an encyclopedia entry on a plot summary is an oxymoron. This was a very close call, but hopefully working to merge the content will be beneficial and examine bloat and how to be more concise in other articles that are admittedly too large. While content forking is an appropriate way to deal with large articles, I do not believe the specific solution here (forking out the plot summary) was the best solution. Finally, I can't ignore the source/verifiability issue here, and the reliance on a primary source in such depth. Critical commentary, secondary sources, and reviews are all great things when examining film/literature. But using the subject in question as the sole source for so long is problematic.-Andrew c [talk] 02:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.   --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions.  -- Artw 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is just a plot summary. By design, it fails WP:NOT. Jay32183 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. We don't need more bloated plot summaries. Bring on the next plot page! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - As I recall, the main reason that this article was created was to keep the size of the main Neon Genesis Evangelion article from blowing out of control. You've raised a valid point, and it should be addressed, but I hesitate to simply delete the article outright.  I'd say that this article could undergo a massive condensing and be merged back into the main article, but it's gonna take some work. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you the main article will has length problems then merging is a bad idea. Jay32183 21:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete As much as I love the series, and considering how deep the plot really is, it still sadly violates WP:NOT. Kwsn (Ni!) 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for plot summaries. If it's getting too big for the page, then trim it.  NGE is no Lord of the Rings, so why does it need more space for a plot summary? --Haemo 23:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment are you sure about that? 70.55.86.129 04:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. While NGE is not particularly long, its plot is infamously complex (mindscrew ending), as such this is an appropriate split-off page. Additionally, between the numerous sources available on the main Evangelion page it should be completely possible to write an encyclopedic article about the plot, its inspirations, context, and so on. --tjstrf talk 01:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If this page used sourced information to clarify the plot then I'd see keeping it. Just describing the plot doesn't work though. I know how complicated the anime gets, but this page is just a plot summary, it doesn't clarify things, or have any encyclopedic value. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 12:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Adding the information for the series to the main article increases it from 82KB to 90KB. Just a note. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge for now per WP:NOT. First half belongs in the main article; second half belongs in End of Evangelion (with perhaps a 1-2 paragraph summary on the main article). However, if out-of-universe information can be added, then the article can satisfy WP:N without issue. I'd rather not see it deleted, because as tj mentioned above, there is clear potential for a good article. How about moving some of the creation and reception information related to the plot here, and then expanding on those? That's the best option. &mdash; Deckiller 21:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A lot of the information that's currently in the (really OR-ish and overdetailed for a main article) sections of the main Eva page regarding symbolism and the like could possibly be merged in with the plot summary for a better independant article, but I'm not sure what it would need to be titled exactly. --tjstrf talk 21:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge as per Deckiller and tjstrf's comments above. Also, see WP:FICT, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:ATT and WP:NOT. Greg Jones II 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOT and WP:SS. Matthew 12:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * NOT#PAPER is not a free pass for articles that violate policy. It does not matter how mnay times or in how many different AFDs you opine to keep on that basis, it is not, and it never will be, a get out of jail free card for articles that violate policy. It says right in NOT#PAPER However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done.... WP:SS is also not a free pass for articles that fail policy. WP:NOT#PLOT could not be any more explicit when it says that Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries. Otto4711 21:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Clear indeed. Especially since this article has obvious potential to include out of universe information as well. --tjstrf talk 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think a plot summary is sufficiently notable and useful when it's for a highly influential multi-billion dollar anime series. But if it does get deleted, I'd appreciate it if a copy could be userfied for me to use when I get around to splitting up Neon Genesis Evangelion. --Gwern (contribs) 17:45 1 July 2007 (GMT)
 * Reply No it's not. It specifically violates WP policy :|
 * Delete. An ecyclopedia is not a story book. Wikipedia is not Neon Genesis Evangelion. The sourced analysis parts (themes/meanings) can be merged, but most is just re-telling of the plot. --maclean 19:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: would this be considered a derivative of copyrighted material? now being re-licensed as copyleft (GFDL)? --maclean 19:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly what you're asking, but including plot summaries that are too detailed can be taken as copyright infringement because it serves as a replacement for the original work. Jay32183 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article only exists as somebody cannot distill a plot. Alientraveller 19:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete. An article should not exist simply because somebody can't summarize a plot into three or four paragraphs. The main article has already bypassed any sense of being small; eight additional kilobytes is not going to make a difference. ' 00:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge back into main article. The summery isn't particularly long and there are much better candidates for splitting then the plot summery. Inspiration and symbolism being one such example. --Farix (Talk) 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge70.55.86.129 04:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Would linking to invidivual episode guide articles count as "Sourcing"?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 00:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No. Please look at WP:RS for what are considered reliable sources. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:41, 7 July 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.