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. While a headcount alone would be a no-consensus result, the overarching issue is that the page is completely bereft of references and is more or less original research. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Face fault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Basically this article is a list of unreferenced facial expressions and alike noted as found in anime productions. _→AzaToth 22:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but remove the lists which do nothing to contribute to an understanding of the topic at hand. This is an aspect of anime that I'm sure sources can be found for. JuJube (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• merge Looking around Category:Anime and manga terminology, There are several pages that should either be merged into this (such as sweat drop) or that it should be merged with (such as Manga Iconography)- there's quite a bit of redundancy. At the very least it needs cleanup and sourcing. but definitely not deletion. For every item that is already noted somewhere else there is another that isn't.Westrim (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone confirm the term actually exists - and that the concept is unique to anime. Even then, it would need to scrap the lists and instead actually provide some scholarly work on the development of the style to prevent the article being a dictionary definition. Doceirias (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I started this article, but that doesn't count for much since I went on to forget its existence for several years. Thanks for the notice, AzaToth. However, calling the subject a list of facial expressions reveals a misunderstanding of the concept. An expression is not a face fault; "face fault" is the established name for the popular convention of expressing shock with an exaggerated cartoony gesture. The TV Tropes article doesn't provide a reliable source but does provide a demonstration. Note the wide variety of face faults in the image.
  
  Not being an expert in the areas of anime, cartoons, visual arts or Japanese weirdness, I don't know where to look for improvements without being bogged down by false positives. Suggestions are appreciated. --Kizor 00:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That image is part of the problem - except for one or two short hands specific to Japan, there's nothing in that image that seems specific to anime. Anything done in a cartoonish style would use drawings like that to expression emotions normally. I've rarely heard the term 'face fault', haven't heard it at all for a number of years, and when I did hear it it described much, much more exaggerated images than that illustration has. I'm not sure this is sustainable as anything but a footnote in the style section of either the manga or anime articles, and even then, it is genre specific. It is possible that sources could be found to describe that style, but I'm not sure it needs an article of its own, and I'm extremely unsure that this is the current term for what the article is describing. Doceirias (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Obviously a widely-used anime term, but the lack of reliable sources is a problem. I found this, which is typical of what I found from a Google search, but this needs to have been documented in reliable sources elsewhere to justify an article here. If those sources could be identified and cited, I don't see a problem keeping this.--Michig (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Referenceless OR article about a non-notable term, and the icing on the cake is that according to a quick Google, the article is likely to be wrong, as "face fault" more commonly refers to the anime cliche of "someone says something unbelievably stupid and everyone falls over in shock". The origin of the error, as far as I can tell, is that much of the article was copy-pasted from wikis with no relation to anime. Also, though the article claims that face faults are the anime counterpart to American "wild takes", the Wild takes article is dominated by a "Wild Takes vs Face Faults" comparison section and has been since its creation, casting further doubts on the subject's notability. Gelmax (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely unreferenced, apparent original research. If someone wants to recreate the article in the future based on verifiable information from reliable sources (should they exist) I have no problem. Guest9999 (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Erm... Am I the only person that bothered to do more than scan this article? The problem with the article is not that it's OR, it's that much of it is redundant to several pages that are sourced. Wholesale deletion is not the answer, checking to see what has been supported elsewhere (just look on Category:Anime and manga terminology) and sorting out what isn't supported is. Westrim (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Having read the article (before my original comment) a lot of it does appear to be original research, whilst a lot of the expressions mentioned do exist most of the descriptive sections are generalisations at best and in some cases just (in my experience) not accurate. That no sources have been provided to me indicated that this is more a personal essay based on someone's personal experience rather than an encycloapedia article based on reliably sourced, verifiable information. An article on the topic may be possible but given the current state of the article and the lack of reliable sources immediately available (there are a few in the category you mention) I don't think there is much to save. Guest9999 (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creator was Kizor, apparently, so you would have to ask him. I agree that at least some (and probably most) of it can and should be deleted, but in my experience, voting for a deletion gets exactly that, with no checking to see if any material might be more useful, appropriate, or supported in another article. With a merge, someone has to at least look at the material. Westrim (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the problem IS the OR, because the article may very well be incorrect. A quick Google search is enough to establish that the meaning of the term is not universally accepted, and that the version given in the article doesn't even appear to be the majority view. Heck, even the spelling of the term is far from established, because I just realized that the reason I'd never heard "face fault" before is because I've always seen it spelled "face vault", and that version gets slightly more Google hits than "face fault" although both seem to be fairly widespread. When you've got something this contradictory and poorly established about something that's basically a piece of jargon, it's hard to justify there being an article on it at all, and an unsourced, unverifiable piece of OR is a definite no-no. Something this messy can't be fixed by the discretion of individuals. And could you suggest another page that this material might fall under? It doesn't seem like Wikipedia has a whole lot of other articles about cliched cartoon physical gags. Gelmax (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were discussions about your first few sentences on the article's talk page, so look there. I agree with one threads conclusion that regardless of its pervasiveness, face vault makes no sense, and is more likely to be a cross-language corruption of the chosen term. Also, and to repeat myself, look at the Categories this article is a member of and particularly the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga_iconography for similar pages and info. The major problem with your OR argument is that it's looking at the article as a whole, when we should be more concerned with it's contents, at least some of which is verified on other pages. Westrim (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 09:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and maybe rename. As other editors have said, parts of this article are already present and sourced in other articles. What this article contributes is that it has the potential to bring it all into one place. Manga iconography already exists, but manga and anime are not analogous. How about renaming to "anime iconography"? The term has been used in some reliable sources, such as this fps magazine article: [1]. Possibly there are better names. I see nothing wrong with a list as long as sources are added. These symbols are so uniform across anime - surely some sort of guidebook has been published in Japan, perhaps for the use of trainee animators? Esn (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.