Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zentradi (2nd nomination)
- 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Zentradi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
My redirect was reverted so I am putting this up for AfD. The article appears to be WP:NOTPLOT of the type that is fitting for Wikia but not Wikipedia. The section on real world impact is only one sentence and has not been improved whatsoever since the previous "keep" vote. I could not find sources to prove that they are notable in a way that the series article could not cover. The sources that were used to defend it in the previous AfD were not sufficiently significant to pass WP:GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per the sources which were, in fact, found sufficient to meet WP:GNG in the last AfD. If you'd like to explain how notability has changed since 2016, I'd be interested to hear it. A redirect is unworkable, because Zentradi/Zentraedi are a fictional element interpreted two different ways in Macross and Robotech, the latter of which is a massive story rework of the original. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Jclemens:Comment No, it was not found to be sufficient, it had a non admin closure that in my opinion did not deliver a true conensus, as User:TTN had a valid argument that was drowned out by fans. That does not mean the keep votes were correct, so please provide evidence for your keep vote rather than citing WP:LASTTIME. I agree with their statement that: "Including the above, pretty much every source listed here is utterly trivial. It seems like everybody is going with the mindset that "the topic 'should' be notable, so it should just be assumed that there's plenty of sources on it." In terms of a redirect being unworkable, the term "Zentradi" is purely a Macross one while "Zentraedi" is a Robotech one, so they can redirect to their respective articles.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's not how this works: if you want to attack a previous close as wrongly decided, WP:DRV is thatway, otherwise, that is the previous consensus. Consensus can change, but that doesn't make a previous consensus "not a consensus." The fact that you agree with the otherwise-entirely-unsupported nominator in the previous AfD does not mean the consensus was wrong. So, do feel free to assert how you believe that not more than one the previous sources in the article or mentioned in the first AfD 'counts' towards the GNG, but realize that the burden to make such a proof is on you, since you want to revise the previous consensus. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Jclemens:Maybe it could be placed in deletion review, I just wasn't sure what the policy was for deletions that were finished such a long time ago. It's a bit too late now for that, but I do disagree with the judgement of the closer of the AfD (ignoring the arguments while only taking into account the spurious keep votes).
- Sorry, but that's not how this works: if you want to attack a previous close as wrongly decided, WP:DRV is thatway, otherwise, that is the previous consensus. Consensus can change, but that doesn't make a previous consensus "not a consensus." The fact that you agree with the otherwise-entirely-unsupported nominator in the previous AfD does not mean the consensus was wrong. So, do feel free to assert how you believe that not more than one the previous sources in the article or mentioned in the first AfD 'counts' towards the GNG, but realize that the burden to make such a proof is on you, since you want to revise the previous consensus. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Jclemens:Comment No, it was not found to be sufficient, it had a non admin closure that in my opinion did not deliver a true conensus, as User:TTN had a valid argument that was drowned out by fans. That does not mean the keep votes were correct, so please provide evidence for your keep vote rather than citing WP:LASTTIME. I agree with their statement that: "Including the above, pretty much every source listed here is utterly trivial. It seems like everybody is going with the mindset that "the topic 'should' be notable, so it should just be assumed that there's plenty of sources on it." In terms of a redirect being unworkable, the term "Zentradi" is purely a Macross one while "Zentraedi" is a Robotech one, so they can redirect to their respective articles.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- In terms of the sources you cited in the last AFD. [1] - is an extremely minor mention and fails significance criteria. [2] - another minor, non significant mention. [3] - another minor mention. I could go on... I don't see a single one that is a significant mention per WP:GNG. As TTN said, "they are all name-drops".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep appears to meet GNG. Artw (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Artw:Comment Any proof besides a WP:VAGUEWAVE?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - You should look at the sources provided during the last AfD debate rather than broadly saying that the subject isn't notable. It is your job as the nominator to show why the sources would be invalid. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - My argument is that they are all minor, insignificant mentions. I could list all of them individually, but it's literally the same argument for all of them. It's essentially WP:LOTSOFSOURCES.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- That applies to looking for sources, not ones that are already present. That guide is helpful in what makes a good deletion argument but it does not override guidelines here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- It applies to when people state "sources" in AfD's claiming they are proof of notability when they really aren't. You can give as many source examples as you want, but you won't find one that significantly mentions the Zentradi. Even if you do find one, I highly doubt that you will find enough to satisfy WP:GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Since they are being used in the article you have to show why they aren't notable. This is under WP:BEFORE Part D - "2.If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- ...Which I did. I looked over all the sources from the last AFD and did searches for sources, and while there were plenty of reliable ones, none of them were significant. They were all extremely brief, passing mentions that don't merit this topic to have an article, just a section on its respective page. The vast majority of sources (if not all of them?) used in this article currently are WP:PRIMARY.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Since they are being used in the article you have to show why they aren't notable. This is under WP:BEFORE Part D - "2.If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- It applies to when people state "sources" in AfD's claiming they are proof of notability when they really aren't. You can give as many source examples as you want, but you won't find one that significantly mentions the Zentradi. Even if you do find one, I highly doubt that you will find enough to satisfy WP:GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- That applies to looking for sources, not ones that are already present. That guide is helpful in what makes a good deletion argument but it does not override guidelines here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - My argument is that they are all minor, insignificant mentions. I could list all of them individually, but it's literally the same argument for all of them. It's essentially WP:LOTSOFSOURCES.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:52, 14 September 2017 (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.