Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminology of KO One


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Terminology of KO One

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

Contested prod. Two unsourced completely in-universe glossaries without any indication of notability (for these terms, not for the main series). These are plot elements without any real world significance. We already have a plot synopsis in the main article, episode descriptions in the epsiode lists, a long list of characters in a separate article as well, and a list of spells for the second series as well. The X Family list has been taged as unsourced since March, but although it has had over 100 edits since and been expanded from 30K to 45K, it still is unreferenced.


 * Also nominated: Terminology of The X-Family (which is the sequel to KO One) Fram (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and rename. I contested the prod, as a procedural matter, for I thought this should get attention more generally. In spite of the confusing names, they seem to be lists of weapons. I think such lists a good idea if the gam is notable enough--which I cannot judge--and the article should be renamed accordingly.  Unlike some content of this sort, the details given for each are not excessive and if it were a game, would fall within the current game guidelines. DGG (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Trivial content at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial / non-notable. Very few fictional works create weapons of sufficient notability for WP to devote an article to them. This isn't one of them. What reliable secondary sources will there be? This isn't like Star wars, which has many reference books, it is inhenrently unsourcable, so should go.Yobmod (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If viewers need a glossary in order to follow the story, it is not Wikipedia's place to provide one unless the terminology itself is notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:45, 26 September 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.