Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Translation of Japanese film credits into English


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Translation of Japanese film credits into English
Delete. Re:WP:NOT, not a guide or definition list. freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ  07:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Going by the WP:NOT it simply has to go. Barryvalder 11:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Freshgavin. Forbsey 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a multilingual dictionary. It's probably useful, but not here. -- Mithent 16:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -Satori (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Move. The article has been moved to my User space, so this discussion is moot now. See User:Nihonjoe/Translation of Japanese film credits into English. Moved: Glossary of Japanese film credit terms. --nihon 18:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article actually fits very nicely under the definition of a glossary as listed in the Wikipedia is not a dictionary section, point 2. --nihon 19:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Go ahead and recreate it in the namespace if you're going to put it up as a glossary. The wording matters; there's just too many pages listing translations for words that have no real place in wiki, but as a glossary this could be useful. (I probably should have noticed that it should be a glossary in the first place, instead of AfDing it. Pardon me!) freshgavin  ΓΛĿЌ  00:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In the future, I recommend discussing it on the approriate talk page before marking an article AfD. It's much better to argue semantics (which is all this is) on the talk page than to cause problems by marking it AfD without thinking about it or discussing it first. --nihon 02:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your sentiment is correct but I didn't consider it a semantic issue at first. Regardless I have already apologized. I choose to take the positive POV that AfD obviously provides quick results, although at the same time, it is obvious that votes come in too quickly and without enough thought. AfD is allowed as a judge of an article's worthiness because it allows for discussion of its merits in a period of five days. This is simply a case of bad timing. freshgavin  ΓΛĿЌ  06:22, 20 February 2006 (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.