Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanctum Sanctorum (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The general view here – not a unanimous view, but nonetheless the view of a substantial majority – is that the available sourcing is sufficient to meet the GNG. Since that perspective is neither logically fallacious nor fundamentally at odds with policy, I have no reason to discount it. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctum Sanctorum

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

Sanctum Sanctorum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Yes, there are a few short news pieces about the appearance of the building in the movie or rather, concept art: [1], [2], [3] and the Time Magazine even covered the trivia that it is listed on Google Maps: [4], but I don't see that any of these few news clickbait stories contains anything that goes beyond plot summary (pretty bare) or few fan-like comments that "it looks like it looked in comics" (or not). Could redirect (not sure if there is anything to merge) to Features of the Marvel Universe or Doctor Strange, perhaps. Anyway, given the few news sources, AfD seems better than PROD, so let's discuss. Maybe someone will find a better source, or maybe you will see something of worth in the sources I linked (but please, read them first, don't just assume that a name in the title equals WP:SIGCOV in the body...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL-REASON 8, 13 and 14. Not to mention that the burden of demonstrating encyclopedic notability is yours. Avilich (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of "The Sanctum Sanctorum has appeared in various media adaptations, including animated television series, video games, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe." is a plot detail of a fictional universe? Artw (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
try again, without cherrypicking -- external reception, influence, and third-party coverage are what confer notability, not listings of pop culture appearances. Avilich (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the goalpost moving as acknowledgement that WP:NPLOT is not a deletion worthy issue here. Artw (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is, and if you can't understand why in-universe information and trivial popcult listings don't make an encyclopedic article, we have a deeper problem at hand. Avilich (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in Wikipedia's policies exclude a general-purpose reliable source from supporting notability on the grounds that a piece published by that source is a "trivial popcult listing". If the source is usable, then inclusion of information in a "listicle" or the like is irrelevant to our review. BD2412 T 19:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People keep saying this and it's just not true. PLOT issues can be solved by editing, and therefore are not reasons for deletion, full stop. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They can be solved by editing so long as significant third-party coverage can be found, which is not the case here. Otherwise you'll effectively blank the page. WP is not supposed to indiscriminately list every piece of in-universe cruft or popcult trivia. Avilich (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have made several extreme misstatements of policy and if you carry out this blanking it will most likley be treated as vandalism. You and Piotr need to bacj down and stop this business. Artw (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who doesn't understand the meaning of "Wikipedia treats creative works in an encyclopedic manner, treating ... reception, significance, and influence of works" ought to have his vote disregarded. This is in the policy I cited, and I've been consistent in applying this logic. You are incapable of even acknowledging it, and you don't seem to know what moving goalposts means either. Avilich (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your alleged policy argument is bunk, I noted it was bunk this time, I noted it was bunk this time, I will note it's bunk the next time, might as well stop doing it. Artw (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for proving my point, by all means keep doing saying helps you cope with the fact that you have no idea of what an encyclopedia is. Avilich (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, yes. Given that I see you as a person who repeatedly lies about policy in order to grief other users I'm not going to take any notes from you on what wikipedia should or shouldn't be, cheers. Artw (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And where did I lie, exactly? I quoted the relevant excerpt and you did just about everything except address it. Avilich (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When you repeatedly invoke NPLOT on articles that are nit summary-only descriptions of works that's a lie. Artw (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An article consisting solely of nit summary-only descriptions and popcult trivia listings is exactly what INDISCRIMINATE/NPLOT applies to. No evidence that I lied; this is just disingenuous. Avilich (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Other editors have demonstrated notability. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify Article is not compliant with WP's standards on fictional subjects. The amount of third-party, out-universe coverage, concerning reception, influence and acclaim (of which the article has none), is insufficient to meet GNG or to demonstrate the encyclopedic viability of the subject. Avilich (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good news, @Avilich:, I have found and added Tyler, Adrienne (April 18, 2020). "Doctor Strange's Sanctum Sanctorum ISN'T A Sherlock Holmes Reference". ScreenRant.. This is at least third-party, out-universe coverage, concerning reception, to the extent that it describes fans as having incorrectly thought that the house referenced 221B Baker Street, the fictional domicile of Sherlock Holmes. BD2412 T 01:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, Romano, Nick (January 5, 2016). "Doctor Strange Movie Art Reveals the Sanctum Sanctorum". Collider. BD2412 T 02:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Screen Rant (reliable?) piece is cheap, fleeting trivia that fails GNG. It says that some fans made a mistake and then corrects them by providing the correct in-universe details. The Collider piece mentions the building three times: two are brief plot recaps to provide context, and the other is a passing mention concerning another character's appearance in it. They don't discuss the building in detail; there's nothing about its development; there's nothing demonstrating that fictional building had any significant real-world impact. You can't even build a stub with articles like those. Avilich (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RSP, ScreenRant "is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics". This is obviously such a topic. Both articles literally are about the Sanctum Sanctorum in their titles. Of course, the Collider article focuses on pictures, which, as you know, are worth a thousand words. BD2412 T 03:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your choosing to ignore that your sources don't give any meaningful real-world commentary of the subject, and that it's cheap fancruft, doesn't make it any less true. This will be closed as keep of course, but this article will remain a plausible target for AfD in the future, since this whole discussion is vague and uninformative, and not one of the keep voters have shown that this topic meets GNG. Avilich (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This will be closed as keep because it meets the GNG, because the Sanctum Sanctorum as a notable fictional location, no less so at this point than Wayne Manor or the Fortress of Solitude or 221B Baker Street. As noted, it is already set to be well-represented in a Spider-Man movie set to open in weeks, and in another Doctor Strange movie coming in the next six months. BD2412 T 04:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't inherited, no sources that aren't bottom-quality, and so on. Avilich (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are permissible sources for the topic area, and there is clearly consensus in this discussion that they are of sufficient quality, which is the real bottom line. BD2412 T 05:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dude there's now TWO lego sets of it. Give it up. Artw (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sanctum_Sanctorum_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1057634283"