Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Settings and themes of Code Geass


 * 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  split and merge. There isn't a clear consensus to delete, but there's a very clear one that the article shouldn't survive in its present form. If there's sufficient sourcing for a section, either break it out separately or merge it back into the parent, please.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Settings and themes of Code Geass

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

Fails WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:NOT, WP:WAF. Article is pure plot and unsourced original research and personal opinion. The topic of the settings of Code Geass does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable third party sources. The themes of the series belongs in the main article and ONLY if it can be sourced to reliable sources, not people's personal interpretations of the series. Nothing in this article is salvagable nor appropriate for merging to the main as it is all unsourced, excessive detail, and would add nothing to the series in terms of encyclopedic content. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Too long. Moved to User:Fallacies/Afd_settings -- Fallacies (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Themes can not be sourced to the series itself as it is interpretation and therefore all OR. The settings is excessive detail and a huge indiscriminate glut of info. We have a section on the world, then on character abilities (not related to settings nor theme), then back to individual countries within the world and their major cities, then a history segement, then technology, etc etc. The first anime series was 26 episodes, the second is slated to be 26. This article Bleach is a much larger series and its settings are properly, and adequately covered in its main article without this frankly ridiculous amount of detail. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Too long. Moved to User:Fallacies/Afd_settings -- Fallacies (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OR: declaring something non-canon. Who decided that? Where is the source? "Unlike the Holy Empire of Britannia, it is more democratic and supports equal human rights" says who? Please provide the book, with specific page number, where this is explicitly stated. "History of the World" where is the source giving this exact timeline, and I don't mean extrapolation from the series, or deduction by doing any sort of calculations. It must be explicitly given. "Corporate Sponsorship" - entire section is OR based on interpretation that the inclusion of logos is a sign of sponsorship. Also, all those sources you added are not accurate, as you don't give any page numbers to confirm anything (and they really are NOT confirmable by the vast majority of English readers as you sourced to the Japanese novels.
 * No, the novels would not be independant from the source, it is part of the overall work. Yes, some of Bleach is sourced to the manga volumes, because that is where the creator discusses the work, however, you are comparing apples and oranges, and badly at that. No one is questioning the notability of the series Code Geass. Just as with Bleach, the series exists and has significant coverage in third party sources to indicate its notability. Bleachs settings, however, had no such coverage, hence all four of those articles being merged into the main. If you can't see that this article is nothing but plot summary (only further confirmed by the only source you could add was, in fact, the novels, that it fails WP:WAF by being excessive in-universe plot and fictional details, and that it fails both WP:FICT and WP:N by having NO significant third party coverage, that isn't something I can't help you with. Even your fellow editors have already told you that the article is beyond glutted with plot (not to mention stating ridiculously obvious stuff, and being repetitive).  Yes, there must be coverage apart from the publishers. Reviewers discussing the settings in-depth (not 1-2 sentences in passing), academic papers written about the settings, coverage in magazines and books, etc. There is NONE of that for this series (nor for MOST series), which is why settings is rarely, if ever, an appropriate break out. Again, this much detail is NOT necessary. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, providing an overview of series, not a fan guide to the minute details about every last aspect of a work. Readers unfamiliar with the series do not need know all of this to have a basic understanding of the series. --  Collectonian  (talk ·' contribs) 13:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Too long. Moved to User:Fallacies/Afd_settings -- Fallacies (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Bleach should be C, and I never claimed it was perfect. I was pointing specifically to its setting section (which as you noted, has multiple sources). Please point out a newsblog source (and do not say ANN, which is not a newsblog, it is a valid WP:RS by all qualifications). Again, your missed the actual point that the amount of setting information in this article is beyond excessive. I'm fine with the novels being used as sources, if they aren't licensed (which looking at the series they are not). However, it seems from the article the ANIME is the primary, work, so per the guidelines of the project, that should be the main source and main content. Secondary works should be used for some supplementation, but this seems to give them undue weight. They aren't even given as much attention in the main article.
 * Renaming it wouldn't fix any of the issues. Relevant setting information appears to already existing in the main article, however if you feel there is something in this article that is missing, then merging is a valid alternative to deletion, but I am not seeing any reason to keep this article at all. Merge a few bits maybe, or delete, but not keep. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Too long. Moved to User:Fallacies/Afd_settings -- Fallacies (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to continue misinterpreting my remarks, and you are misinterpreting all that. Yes, my original justifications all stands. To be a spinout, it would actually have to be something that would have belonged in the main article and was spunout because of size issues. This wouldn't belong in the main in this form, and if it were properly written, size wouldn't be an issue. This "require sources independent from the original subject matter, which as per the above discussion cannot be found for most anime anyways" is blatantly false, as is shown by many other anime and manga articles. If it has no third party sources, the entire series article would be at Afd (and yes, we have deleted series articles for works that have no third party coverage). Do not use your inability to find information as an overall statement that they just don't exist, nor your bad understanding of the laws in Japan. Again, if there are no third party sources, which you yourself have now admitted to multiple times, then topic is NOT notable. That isn't something you just brush aside with "oh well, there are no sources, but I still say its notable because I say so." And this isn't speedy deletion, its AfD so that line doesn't apply at all, nor does preserve. Transwiki if a valid option for preservation, and that's already proposed below. Your attempts to excuse the valid reasons for this deletion discussion do not apply. And please stop changing your comments so dramatically after they have been replied to...-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Too long. Moved to User:Fallacies/Afd_settings -- Fallacies (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you admit you can not read Japanese. Have you checked every last book on anime and manga in general? Checked every magazine article about the series? etc? Other series do have such discussions, this one does not. Nor did I say they have to only be in Japanese, though with this being an apparently unlicensed series, all the most reason all this is beyond excessive and lacking in notability as obviously there are little to no English sources on it either. And you can't find Japanese ones to back any notability. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Too long. Moved to User:Fallacies/Afd_settings -- Fallacies (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The lack of independence DOES disqualify the sources for purposes of determining notability. Never said they couldn't use to verify, but they do NOT provide notability. That's the pint you again, have missed. They must have licenses for reprinting the work, not for discussing/reviewing it. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Too long. Moved to User:Fallacies/Afd_settings -- Fallacies (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All of my initial proposals hold up. YOU are the defender are required to find the surces. I've already said they do not exist. It isn't notable. The entire article is plot. Plot includes the fictional discussions of the fictional history of the countries, the timelines, etc. I'm done answering though, as you are just repeating the same arguments over and over, which basically says "I know it isn't notable and I don't care." And a warning is not necessary before AfDing an article, nor is tagging it for notability. I only tag articles for notability issues if it might actually have some. This has none, period. --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say all of it is plot. It is common for anime series articles to include a list of settings, and as such the list of countries and common locations is not something that needs to be deleted. This includes the first half of the article. Definitions of terms are also very common, leaving the chronology and corporate sponsor list somewhat questionable. Other series such as the Gundam article collection create a separate article for a plot summary, so I believe that the timeline should be moved to a new article that also has a plot summary of the first season. The corporate sponsor part can be deleted as long as Cheese-kun is mentioned on C.C.'s character page, which I believe it is. As an example, Gundam SEED has a separate article for the plotline of the first series (the First Bloody Valentine War), a separate article for locations, a separate article for factions, and a separate article for mobile weapons. A separate article for locations and factions may be in this case unnecessary, and it may be possible to merge the list of vehicles present in this article with the Knightmare Frame article and instead retitle it "Vehicles of Code Geass." This creates more concise articles with more appropriate titles and brings it into line with the general standards seen in other series. This bears a striking similarity to Brian G. Crawford's anti-Gundam crusade; calling the entire thing unnotable because of its nature as fiction (which is by no means a good rationale). the_one092001 (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (unindent) I posed the challenge because of such discrediting comments regarding my competency as an editor as, "Do not use your inability to find information as an overall statement that they just don't exist, nor your bad understanding of the laws in Japan," "You are just repeating the same arguments over and over, which basically says I know it isn't notable and I don't care," "Yes, but you admit you can not read Japanese," and edit comments of questionable civility such as "hit the brick wall some more." The challenge was motivated as a civil request for you to back up these remarks as something besides a personal attack.
 * The fact is, the specific subject matter at hand -- terminology in an anime series (or for that matter, a piece of fiction) -- is not something you will find discussed in any 3rd party resources that we can objectively recognize as reliable. The terminology and settings of a fictitious work can only be documented "reliably" by the original creators, and is not in general a subject matter that is likely to be discussed or reviewed by a 3rd party in a manner we can consider "valid." In the few instances that a party normally unaffiliated with an anime creator actually produces a "reliable" text documenting terminology, it is typically with explicit license of intellectual materials from the creator, as in the Evangelion Concordance. Only in this sort of case can we presume that the resource is indeed "reliable." That's why I said "reliable 3rd party resources on fictitious terminology do not exist." The vast majority of "reliable materials on terminology in fiction" used in WP are not 3rd party, with the possible exception of stuff like the HPL.
 * To begin with, thus, asserting that a true 3rd party resource as the only thing that may legitimately establish notability for an article on terminology and settings within a fictitious canon is unreasonable; and a lot of terminology articles (like this one) in well-established WikiProjects such as WikiProject_Star_Wars consequently never cite any 3rd party sources at all. This isn't a matter of simply one or two other cases where no 3rd party resources are cited. By your standards, this is an entire category of articles that qualify for immediate AfD. Are we to delete them all and render Wikipedia useless to interested readers? Your argument resembles WP:CRUFTCRUFT.
 * Taking a closer look at the policies, the current article content satisfies the text of WP:N's "Presumed notability," "Significant coverage," "Reliable resources," technically "Secondary sources" guidelines (being that manga, novels, the official website, etc. are in fact "one step removed" from the anime). "Independent sources" is the only explicit violation, and as per the circumstances above, these aren't likely to exist. You have said that "I know it's unnotable," but in fact, I don't. I feel that being a useful resource for people that want to understand Code Geass, it should be worthy of note -- however, the circumstance of the article being about "terminology and settings" makes it extremely difficult to satisfy the text of the "Independent" requirement. Further (to repeat yet again) the WP:SS advisory justifies the existence of such an article. WP:FICT says, "Elements of a work of fiction, including individual stories, episodes, characters, settings, and other topics, are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage of the element(s) in reliable secondary sources." As per the satisfaction of "secondary" above, where is lack of notability?
 * A lot of these regulations you cite violations for are also interlinked with a supposed infringement of WP:PLOT. This guideline provides absolutely no objective means officially recognized by the majority of the community to determine what does or doesn't qualify as a indiscriminant plot dump. On what basis do you determine that this is "all plot," and why does it matter?
 * In regard to your assertion that this article "would add nothing to the series in terms of encyclopedic content,", please refer to this. On this note, I am retiring from the discussion for at least two or three days for a business trip. I hope sincerely that this article isn't simply vanished by the time of my return.
 * -- Fallacies (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge anything sourced to the main article, Delete the rest. There is not reason for this to be an independent article, and lack of sourcing IS grounds for deletion. Doceirias (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge, maybe weak delete Complicated though this series may be, I do recognize the fact that it is woefully bloated, which you haven't exactly been helpful in keeping in check Fallacies. This is why I was trying to keep it slim. A large portion of it is superfluous (cities, towns, Narita, most of the terms). it could be knocked down to the basics and integrated into the main article. However, outright deletion won't help. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to http://codegeass.wikia.com, then weak delete or merge. Please give me time! 75.156.83.110 (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Although this article itself is very weak, I think we should improve it instead of deleting it. - plau (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki then Merge and Rename. While very expansive and informative, the article is too broad and should be divided and placed into specific articles. There are no "themes" listed here, although the settings list is a valid addition. The different parts should be split up into specific articles for settings, plot, and terms, in keeping with standard practices.the_one092001 (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Bad faith nom. Jtrainor (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment from an editor who didn't like me tagging "his article" with issues who went behind a bunch of my edits making the same false accusation. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is a summarization of the setting and theme of the work in question based off the primary source. Seems to be encyclopedic and scholarly to this cat. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article gives a much too bloated and detailed description. A concise summary of relevant and cited information should be merged into relevant other articles, such as the main article, Code Geass. A transwiki before merging would be acceptable, and advised if the CGW wants the information. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (for now) - There is a lot of content here. It should be properly reduced through edits.  If it is then small enough to be merged then I'm all for it, but as is, bad idea, because of WP:SIZE.  The article is pretty tough to parse through and find what is worthwhile and what isn't.  A proper merge of this content would take a lot of work, and an improper merge into the main article would just allow for article rot.  For now, restraining this information to (a single) subpage is a decent compromise.  Transwiki would also be a good idea to some appropriate project, as I'm sure someone is interested in this (hopefully the author at least). -Verdatum (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki - On review, with the exception of the section on corporate sponsorship, I see nothing but in-universe information. People interested in this level of detail should be visiting a fansite, or just watching the show themselves. -Verdatum (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has alot of helpful information on the subject of Code Geass which many people may need and find very helpful, myself included. I think that it should be improved, not deleted.--FunkMasterFlex3 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - a quick look at the sources suggests that it is mostly original research (i.e. it's sourced to the manga and anime). On the subject of notability, you may be able to spin the topic out of its parent (presumably Code Geass and Code Geass) by using developer statements and companion novels. Sceptre (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Souring to the primary work doesn't automatically make it original research. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 14:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant to say synthesis, which is a subset of OR. Sceptre (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That either, though I'll agree some of it probably is. However, for the most part it's just a big pile of relatively useless facts. Even on this scale, stating facts isn't synthesis. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 14:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The main danger in citing the fiction itself is to fall into the synthesis trap. For example of a recent dispute I've been aware of, a gun in the Doctor Who episode "Silence in the Library" had the same effect (visual and fictional) as a previous gun from "The Empty Child", but saying so could stray into synthesis - though the dispute was settled when an official source linking the two explicitly were found. I think multiple fiction citations should be used only when there is an explicit link which precludes synthesis. Sceptre (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree in principal, and I remember that discussion. Still feel it should have been a matter of common sense, but the source solved that. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 15:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep or Merge: It is indeed a long article, and it could use a lot of trimming and rewriting for things that are very minor, but outright deletion is not needed. If a third of it can be used as The Rogue Penguin says, then I am not against merging, but I do feel that the main article will become very, very long. Fenrir-of-the-Shadows (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep For the sake of briefness I will only address the reasons Collectonian gave for nominating this article, plus one other comment I read before deciding to weigh in. First, I must disagree with the unsourced and Original Research assertions. There are 49 sources listed and although the do not cover everything, that's grounds for a source tag, not outright deletion. From reading samples of the rest, I would say that the OR statement is also unfounded. Everything that I read that I had reached in the anime directly reflected the facts stated on the show. Collectonian quoted the article during one of her rebuttals "Unlike the Holy Empire of Britannia, it is more democratic and supports equal human rights", about the EU, and asked where it was supported. I believe someone has edited it to show the source, but a character stated in episode six "What became of the EU, who claimed that all are equal?". Seems like pretty firm support to me. Second, On what basis do you say that there is little third party info? Unfortunately there is little listed right now, but I got around one and a half million hits searching for it in japanese. Just because we can't read it doesn't mean that the info isn't there? The rest of your nomination statement seems to be based on a rather dismissive attitude- really, there's absolutely nothing in this article that can be used elsewhere if it was merged, the whole thing should be tossed? I'm sorry but that attitude is hard to work with. I'm sorry about any others who question your competence, but what they say about you should have no bearing on your thoughts on the article itself. Wikipedia's goal is to be impartial and unbiased, after all.  Westrim (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the sources are sourced to the primary works, with a huge chunk of the references being to a WIKI. Wikipedia was also being used as a reference. Unless it was directly said or shown in the episodes or novels, its interpretation and therefore OR. And yes, it should be tossed. We are not a fictional series guide, and this sort of stuff be of interest to fans of these series. Someone wanting an overview wouldn't care about 95% of it at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, providing an overview of a topic, not the minute details about something that is not even relevant to anything within the series, much less nothing that isn't even worth discussing by reliable sources in the real world. There are only TWO third party sources that are not wikis (pretty much auto fails WP:RS). The topic is NOT notable in any way shape or form. To be partial and unbiased, all the "I like it" should also be discounted, if valid, policy and guideline based reasonings are considered to not be "impartial." --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then understand that I read this entire group of articles before I ever saw the series. I was made aware by a friend that it would be broadcast on tv, and due to their recommendation I decided to check it out. As a college student intending to become a history teacher, the alternate history perspective shown was of great interest. As a tech-phile, I appreciated the depth of the knightmare article. I defend it based on that initial impression, not out of blind fan love. One does not have to be a fan to appreciate this article, just someone seeking information on it- some, like me, want more than others, like you, perhaps, do. That doesn't mean that we should delete what you personally don't find useful. Oh, and to the fictional series guide comment- yes, we are. Wikipedia is to be a encyclopedia where, quoting Wikipedia:about "Many visitors come to this site to acquire knowledge, others to share knowledge." If that knowledge happens to be on fictional topic, so be it. I don't find you article on the relationships of meerkats to be useful, despite having seen the show and liking documentaries in general- I wouldn't dream of deleting it, though. Again if its sources that you have a problem with, then leave the source tag, but don't just delete it. The only reason that we can't find any third party discussion of it is that its new- all we have to go on are english preview materials. Again, lack of support that you can understand (japanese websites)or lack due to newness does not equal delete. Please keep the article. Westrim (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above - plau (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - excessive weight and detail given to this topic, which is better represented as part of the main article. As it stands, there is no exceptional notability (no notability at all asserted even, as there is no coverage from reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic to justify a spinout article), and all of the present sources are first party. As such, the content should be trimmed, summarized, and merged back into Code Geass. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 06:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. Wow. Now this is some long read. I agree with trimming, since (quite a few) bits of info are really not important.  Not quite sure how this article to be summarised, since there's just a lot of subheadings with minimal text each. I agree with Westrim that it doesn't take a fan to appreciate this article. I am not against a merge, but with the bulk of the useful info here, the main page will become VERY long. Looking at the discussion, I'd say for people to suggest and agree upon sections that can be cut and see how long it would be, but people will most likely say "the whole thing!" or something like that.  And attacking Collectonian won't solve the issue. --nyoro~! Highwind888 (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify the merging aspect, a lot of this article, and I mean a hell of a lot of this article (we're talking two-thirds at least, in terms of kb), will get omitted. All the cities, most of the terms, the secondary Geass listing; all gone. Most of it isn't really necessary, and it can be summarized in a fairly concise manner on the main page. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Split and Merge: This article is a mess, there's no way around it. It's ridiculous - it's a mishmash listing of everything. Unique terms, locations, history...it really just looks like this article was a dumping ground for every single piece of Code Geass-related information that didn't fit into an existing article. Some of the sections (such as "Geass") are weak now but might deserve their own articles once all the related information is revealed the show is over; some of them (such as "Corporate Sponsorship") ought to be merged into an existing article, and some of them (such as "Terminology") ought to just be deleted. 65.33.206.108 (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge. Dumping ground of unconnected plot summaries with no apparent real-world relevance. Salient points may be summarised in a plot section in the main article.  Sandstein   07:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides timeline, where are the plot summaries? -- Fallacies (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Bad faith nom per WP:Point. Yzak Jule (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing bad faith nor pointy about it. Such false, baseless accusations are, however uncivil and add nothing to the actual discussion. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 10:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - this level of plot information does not belong here --T-rex 18:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia as a paperless encyclopedia has a lot of leeway as to how much it can cover. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire no plot! argument seems like a misunderstanding of the text of WP:PLOT, which is explicitly related to not having an article composed solely of a plot summary — that is, a sequential retelling of a story, and not simply "describing elements or concepts within a work of fiction." -- Fallacies (talk) 20:26, 6 July 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.