Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowhere

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Knowhere

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Outside of plot summary, the article has a single quote from a WP:INTERVIEW with the authors, and I am not seeing much else. Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This just doesn't have the secondary sourcing required. It's more the sort of content one would expect to find on Wikia. The title might be useful as a plausible misspelling of nowhere but retaining the edit history would not be productive. I also point out that disruptively removing legitimate maintenance tags just so you can obscure in edit summaries that you are deprodding strikes me as petty, pointlessly dishonest, and snide. Reyk _YO! 13:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Discussions of Knowhere appear numerous times in Comic Book Resources (seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia), it seems to be a key plot item in Guardians of the Galaxy, and has been the focus of a journalistic discussion of a movie plot flaw. We don't delete articles because they currently lack secondary sourcing -- we improve the articles to include the secondary sourcing that does exist. I'm relatively new to AfD's, but my thinking is "what's the harm in keeping?" - AppleBsTime (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The two links you provided are to reliable sources, but the dicussion of the subject is rahter sparse. I count 4 sentences mentioning it in the first source, and 2 in the second, and they are all either 'previous appearances in media' or 'plot summary'. Can you quote any sentence that shows analysis, significance or impact of this concept? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The place is quite notable, especially since the success of the GotG movies. I'm finding that it's quite easy to find detailed sources and so our policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." For example, the latest interesting fact: "The Knowhere station in the film Guardians of the Galaxy comprised 1.2 billion unique triangles that fit within 30GB of memory". Andrew🐉(talk) 15:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neither keep opinion has presented sourcing that allows the article to meet WP:GNG. None of the secondary sources provide anything that could be described as "significant coverage" on the topic. It's all just trivial little mentions. TTN (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments, or merge to Celestial (comics) per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not have direct and indepth SIGCOV from RS. // Timothy :: talk 20:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. William Harris (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because some people claim several times that something "doesn't have coverage" or "fails GNG" that doesn't make it true, especially when there is contradictory proof posted right above them....★Trekker (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to point out that proof. What's present is a bunch of trivial mentions, some from reliable sources, some questionable. The singular source that covers the topic in the most detail is just an explanatory article that's 95% synopsis for the non-comic reader and a singular quote from the creators. TTN (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just like our article, which is totally not how to write about WP:PLOT elements. Not that not following MoS is enough to delete something, but it is just one of many red flags here... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contra nom as it passes the GNG due to coverage in secondary sources. Disruptive, dishonest nomination. --Moscowdreams (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC) (Indefinitely blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

I don't believe that Piotrus is attempting to mislead, even if their standard for coverage can be absurd at times. Dark knight 2149 00:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Putting aside the fact that it passes WP:NCOMIC (which, like WP:NFICTION, can be dismissed as "just an essay"), I think the coverage itself is sufficient enough to pass GNG. That we have multiple articles going into detail on the location, as well as creator comments and behind the scenes information, is a testament to that. An entire news article devoted to the fact that the location may have received an origin story is not significant coverage? A news article and creator commentary pertaining to the locations prominence in a $2 billion dollar blockbuster is not significant coverage? Even in the article itself, there are sources and interviews that discuss how the creators came up with major design elements for Knowhere. Even the location potentially getting an origin story in an upcoming film is apparently newsworthy. Dark knight 2149 00:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I acknowledge my bias here & probably shouldn’t be !voting as i am the stereotype Marvel “fan-boy” (I’m a girl in real life), that aside, Knowhere has been mentioned multiple times in comic books & a deep web search shows hits in sources of which a combination of all would see Knowhere warrant a standalone per BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable per the sources talking about the Guardians of the Galaxy movie. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Guardians of Galaxy, as the only piece of notability identified is related to that work. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Guardians of the Galaxy (film)#Plot. After a check of the available sources, nothing appears to be on the level of truly significant/reliable. Mostly plot information and trivia. I could write an article with many more sources about a video game location and still have it soft deleted, so if this is truly kept the standard for comics is pretty low. Mere mentions in comic books is not enough for an article, though it is for a Wikia page._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one simply has to add "marvel" to the search parameters to yield: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Right cite (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User talk:Darkknight2149 --Telecart (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Celestial (comics), which contains enough about Knowhere to give readers context. I applaud the efforts to find mentions in reliable sources, but I don't see enough information about Knowhere in those sources to build a meaningful article. They all say what Knowhere is, and sometimes mention its first comic appearance or whatever. The only real-world data we have is that the writers "just thought of it one day." That's not noteworthy or useful to readers. It is a valid search term, and I considered targeting it toward Features of the Marvel Universe (where it's currently not mentioned), but I think BOZ got it right. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. A significant and well-storied location in multiple media of the franchise. BD2412 T 01:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the topic is treated in secondary sources. I have added a bit of non-plot information as a start (which is not in Celestial (comics)). Daranios (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2020 (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.