Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zettai Ryōiki


 * 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 keep (no consensus) - Nabla (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Zettai Ryōiki

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

Unverifiable original research on a non-notable neologism. Original prod was disputed --Farix (Talk) 10:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   —Farix (Talk) 11:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I was the person who removed the prod, with the statement: "Giving the article the benefit of doubt: the japanese wiki article states that the term was explained on tv, being used by the porn industry, and being trademarked by Banpresto." Further investigation into these is warranted, and so I will not vote keep for now. _dk (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for the following reasons, quoting the entire text of the article:
 * "Zettai Ryōiki (絶対領域, Zettai Ryōiki?) is an anime/manga related term for describing the area of bare skin exposed on the thighs between the skirt and socks for female characters." This is a dictionary definition. "The socks are preferably over the knee type." This is one editor's opinion. "It is a common Tsundere/Meido attribute." This is original research. "The term Zettai Ryouiki loosely translates to Absolute Territory in Japanese." This is plausible, and has no apparent relation to the meaning of the term. "The ratio of exposed skin to the skirt and the socks is generally agreed in standard anime geek/otaku lore as 4:1:2.5 (Length of the skirt : Skin on thigh exposed : Length of the sock above the knee)." This is unreferenced, and I don't anticipate a scientific poll of anime geeks/otaku to find its way into scholarly literature soon. We may have to settle for a careful meta-analysis. "The term is said to have been inspired from the Neon Genesis Evangelion's AT field, but this has no relation to its present meaning." This is unreferenced, and even if a reference were provided, would not elevate the article above a dictionary definition of a neologism. One wonders how much information having no relation to the meaning of the term being defined belongs in its definition. "Anime characters known for their Zettai Ryouiki include Rin Tōsaka from Fate Stay Night, Louise from Zero no Tsukaima, and Karen Stadtfeld from Code Geass." What is the charactistic of their "zettai ryouiki"? Who has noted them? Is there any reason why Wikipedia should have this statement? References: Two blogs and a user page (I think) on some wiki. In short, this is a one-sentence dictionary definition of a term that, as a neologism, does not deserve coverage in Wikipedia, and refers to a concept that itself is not worth an article, even if mentioned on Japanese television (what's not?), used in the porn industry (that doesn't help its case) or trademarked (making something a trademark doesn't contribute to its being noteworthy). Apart from the article, Google claims hundreds of thousands of matches, but #871 is the last one it serves up. Fg2 (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to say that people don't decide what's notable, sources and verifiability do. (Granted, I don't have the sources and I can't care enough to look for them) You may not think that Japanese TV and porn and a trademark can help its case, but that argument is just based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Clearly this article needs to be rewritten, and I wouldn't mind the article deleted so that a better article can be written anew. _dk (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete what might conceivably be worth an entry in a dictionary, and perhaps transwiki it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Never heard of this myself, and it sounded.. well.. just like one of those things that someone just kind of pulls out of their butt, or tries to make into a meme. However, _dk's comments do make me pause. I'll see if I can find anything before the AfD ends. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a pretty well-known moe element, which has found its way into dictionaries (see this colloquialism dictionary entry for example) in Japanese at least. International fans have been using it rather liberally for some time, as they did with tsundere a couple of years ago (when similar doubts as these ones were being raised on the talk page), and look where we are now.
 * As a side note, I believe Akiba Blog should qualify as a reliable source: despite its name, it's not really a blog but a personal news site that is held in pretty high regard, and certainly has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Bikasuishin (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some more: the Akiba Keizai Shimbun (a reliable news source of Digital Hollywood Entertainment) has had several headlines mentioning the term, including this one, which is rather in-depth (and mentions the 4:1:2.5 "golden ratio" as well). Bikasuishin (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge the info in this article would be notable in the articleTsundere as this article even cites Zettai Ryōiki as being a very common attribute among Tsundere characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. _dk (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Bikasuishin. This one seems borderline, but there seem to be some reliable sources so I think it should be given a chance to be sourced and expanded. Cattus talk 11:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Bikasuishin has demonstrated that sources exist. Tag for cleanup and remand to the Japan Wikiproject to fix up when they get to it. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:42, 1 April 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.