Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 18:21, 12 May 2024

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 December 30. For an explanation of the process, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review.

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. MBisanz 23:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of the Line

• Articles for deletion/Battle of the Line
• Articles for deletion/Battle of the Line (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Battle of the Line (3rd nomination)

Battle of the Line (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)

Non-notable fictional battle. While there is some independent coverage of this topic in reliable sources, none discuss it in sufficient detail (i.e. more than a few lines) to warrant a full article, and there are no sources which suggest that it has any significance outside the Babylon 5 universe. Claritas § 22:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep 14 sources, 5 of which are pretty much unassailably independent reliable sources, discuss it. GNG is met and then some. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Unassailably independent reliable sources ? Let's go through them.

The Babylon File Volume 2: The Definitive Unauthorized Guide to J. Michael Straczynski's Babylon 5 does not qualify as a a reliable secondary source. If you have a look at it, it contains no useful secondary analysis of Babylon 5, it's a completely inuniverse description of the plot. It's published by a minor publisher by an author with no scholarly credentials. Science fiction is a topic which is widely covered by academic journals, so there is no need to use non-academic texts unless they are of the highest quality.

The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 is a fan produced guide, obviously not a RS.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates73.html is a reliable source by a scholar (although not one with relevant expertise), but it mentions the "battle of the line" only once, and has a much broader primary topic.

Role-playing game obviously a primary source.

Johnson-Smith is arguably a RS, but only trivially mentions the main subject of this article, no significant coverage.

"Babylon 5's Blueprint for the Archetypal Heroes of Commander Jeffrey Sinclair and Captain John Sheridan with Ambassador Delenn" is obviously about the characters, and not the battle, but it would be helpful for you to quote from this article to see which text you are using to verify notability due to the paywall.

Novelisation is a primary source.

TV.com, space.com do not have adequate editorial standards to be RSs.

Please explain how this constitutes significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources. Claritas § 09:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure: your definition of a "reliable secondary source" and "trivial" as used above are, respectively, unsupportably more narrow and expansive than consensus. And again, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, your inability to read what I have found isn't my problem--if you want to call it not RS or trivial, then the onus is on you to get access and disprove its applicability. Jclemens (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That's completely incorrect. The burden falls entirely upon you to verify notability. It's quite clear from our policy on reliable sources that sources should be scholarly or of a scholarly standard. --Claritas § 18:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is about verification of article content, not verification of notability. If anyone was to quote enough of a source to verify that it contains significant coverage then that would go beyond fair use, and so would be a copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens has not shown that the sources cited even verify the article content. This is just a strategy to prevent the deletion of this worthless trash. Claritas § 21:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That's right, I haven't. WP:BEFORE expects you to find deficits with them--which you have not--before nominating an article for deletion. I don't need to do your job for you; you need to do it. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:FANCRUFT --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, on the grounds that reference 6 ("About Michael O'Hare's Departure". GEnie, via The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5.) is a direct quote of series creator J. Michael Straczynski and therefore constitutes a reliable, non-fictional-world source per WP:RS, regardless of its inclusion via The Lurker's Guide fansite; and further that references 3, 10 and 11 from The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 should constitute reliable secondary sources - since the WP article on the guide itself quotes Straczynski acknowledging "The Lurker's Guide and Grimm for his years of help and support, illustrating The Guide's significant central role in the development of Babylon 5 fandom, and the series itself"<emphasis mine>. The quote is from the Babylon 5 5th season DVD release (which in the context of the Lurker's Guide article is a reliable secondary source).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Per WP:GNG, sources don't just have to be RSs, but also "significant" and "independent", and all the sources for this article fail one of these criteria. If you neglect these fundamental aspects of notability on Misplaced Pages, I can't see how you could possibly recommand to keep this article. I encourage you to either try to find new arguments or to change your recommandation.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per the arguments of Jclemens and Vulcan's Forge. BOZ (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Both Clemens and Vulcan's Forge arguments have been rebutted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • In the sense of "making a contrary argument", perhaps, but in the more common sense of "presenting contrary evidence" I see nothing that I would say that reaches that level of argument. I see a lot of "no it isn't" and other such basic contrariness, but nothing that actually attempts to understand the sourcing. Frankly, I simply don't think your understanding of fictional element notability has ever been sustained, anywhere on Misplaced Pages, but you've not yet taken my advice to upgrade your understanding as far as I can tell. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You've just demonstrated all your talent for self-persuasion and contempt, but as far as arguments go you remain desperately stuck at sub-zero level, and this is getting old. I'm sorry but you're not entertaining anymore, and I don't have time to play with you. You'll have to find something else to distract yourself from boredom. Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Jclemens's comment from the previous AFD for this we were both in. "as a notable plot element of a major fictional universe which has received print coverage outside the work itself." This major bit is found in the television series, made for television movies, books, and the comic books. The coverage found is sufficiently referenced in the article to prove its notable. Dream Focus 14:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Jclemens' essay on notability and his very loose criteria are not what should prevail here, but only the GNG. And GNG is obviously not met, as the coverage is insufficient to prove any notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, because the sources proposed either do not meet WP:GNG (not independent or significant enough) or are not about the subject of the article. Those who /voted "keep" on claims that GNG is met or that sourcing is "independent"/"sufficient"/etc clearly need to take a closer look at WP:GNG, which they obviously don't understand:

1. Creator Straczynski's comments (sources 6 and 7) from GEnie are his own, personal messages self-published through the GEnie online service and are the 1990's equivalent of personal blog comments. Though they can be used as RS, they cannot be used to assert notability since GNG requires sources to be "independent of the subject", which "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent". As the comments are not part of an interview (for example) from an independent magazine and the Battle isn't brought up by an independent commentator, these GEnie comments are not independent and don't demonstrate notability.
2. As to The Babylon File, source 2 (as used in the "Plot significance section") isn't about the Battle but about "Sinclair's memory loss". Doesn't pass GNG which states that "sources address the subject directly in detail" which is not the case here, the subject is not a character's amnesia. Other than that, The Babylon File vol. 1/2 are exclusively used for plot summary, which does not qualify as "significant coverage" going beyond "a definition of that topic" (WP:WHYN).
3. Source 8 contains nothing "more than a trivial mention", indeed, a single sentence.
4. Source 9 isn't a comment "directly" about the subject, but about the character itself. The Battle in itself is not even mentionned but only alluded to and bundled up with all of the character's "past", this is even less than a trivial mention.
5. All the other sources are just episode recaps (so trivial mentions not going beyond a definition of the topic) or about something else entirely.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you think that dealing with Sinclair's memory loss isn't dealing with The Battle of The Line demonstrates a serious lack of understanding in the place of the fictional battle in the series' narrative. The mystery of why Sinclair survived the battle of the line, why he was taken POW, and what happened to him during that time forms the underlying mystery for the show's first season. The rest of your assessments again expect too much from individual sources, and downplay the coverage that's present for a fictional element that's approaching two decades since it originally aired on television. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Battle of The Line is background fiction. The memory loss is an actual plot device within episodes and directly tied to the main character. The Battle isn't a plot device, as you say, it's all about the character's situation to which the battle only serves as a backdrop. The Battle of The Line could have been The Battle of Helm's Deep or Bilbo's 111th Birthday and it wouldn't have changed a thing about episode structure based around memory loss. You don't seem to ~understand much about fictional writing and narrative structures. I'm not expecting too much and I downplay absolutely nothing; I didn't write WP:GNG, if you have a problem with it, then try to change it. But as long as it is the tool with which notability is determined on WP, then that's how we'll assess individual sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines are suggestions, not absolute law. And I added in a link to a reliable source that mentions it throughout in various places and how important that event was in the series. Anyplace that reviewed the show, or various episodes, will mention this battle. Google doesn't index everything of course, and the show is old now. Dream Focus 23:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines are not "suggestions" but "sets of best practices that are supported by consensus". Intentionally going against them is going against consensus. Mentions are not enough to make an article notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, while guidelines are "generally accepted" standards, each guideline page is headed with the caution that they are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply," as they are NOT policies. It is through discussions such as the one we have here where those common sense "occasional exceptions" are discussed and approved through consensus. Ignoring the greater understanding that occasional exceptions may apply is what might be seen as "against the consensus" that built our guidelines in the first place. Schmidt, 20:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

For the principle of exception to apply, there must be a debate that leads to an agreement on why an exception should be made (ie why would the topic be so tremendously important that rules should be violated, and what can actually be done with the article to improve it). I have seen none of that here, only a swarm of inclusionist votes. You should also beware of the excuse of exception, if all articles are kept on the basis of exception, then there is no exception anymore, it's become rule. So could you show me how this article can be an exception compared to other articles that would be deletable ? This is important to determine whether the "exception" mentionned in AfD really exists and would benefit WP, or if it's just an inclusionist fallacy and an attempt at gaming the system.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per being a decently enough sourced spin out of Earth–Minbari War. A topic is not expected to always or ever be in the headlines, as long as sources expert enough in the topic discuss in enough detail. We do not expect perfection as long as we DO enlighten our readers on the topic being discussed. I find the disparaging use of the neologism "fancruft" to not be helpful, as it is not policy nor guidelne, and even fan-related topics can be considered notable enough for a comprehensive encyclopedia.Schmidt, 00:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Could you please elaborate on "decently sourced", because there are too many elements pointing to the contrary. It is not a question of "making the headlines" but meeting our inclusion criteria for fictional topics, which is obviously not the case here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Many people believe the article is decently sourced, and you just keep arguing with all of them since you disagree. You believe the coverage should be longer perhaps, others believe its fine. Dream Focus 18:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Given that AfDs are not votes, I can't see your point here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• @Folken de Fanel. With respects toward your opinions, I read all the arguments toward delete and all the arguments toward keep. I need not repeat them all again simply to underscore that I agree with the keeps. I never said sourcing was perfect, only that it was "decent enough" so as to serve the project, and yes... it could certainly be further improved over time and through regular editing by those editors with an interest in improving our coverage of this topic. My understanding is that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress with no demand for immediate perfection. What can be addressed through regular editing is a reason to allow it be done... and rarely a reason to delete. And while I do not expect that editors who wish it deleted would bother to improve the article, those that DO have an interest will be the ones to make it even better. Thank you. Schmidt, 20:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately you're wrong, coverage is not decent enough. Coverage must meet the criteria developed in WP:GNG to be decent, and that's not the case here. Your reasoning is erroneous from the start, not all articles can be improved, many of them are actually useless from the start and don't correspond to WP's aims, such as this one...There is no point in claiming that fancruft articles can "improve", because years of existence have proved they can't. You're just pushing an ideology forward, and as with all fancruft articles, inclusionists who fight to keep articles just for the sake of it, will also be the first to abandon the topic because they know nothing can be done with it. If you believe this article can be improved, I'm very curious to know how and with what you're going to do that. That's the best way I know to check whether an AfD comment is an inclusionist vote or a true belief in improvement.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep There's enough to meet the requirement. htom (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Per WP:AFDFORMAT, "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". So could you please explain what would meet what criteria, instead of just making an allegation that blatantly ignores solid proof (exposed for example in my own recommandation) that this article does not meet our inclusion requirements that you can find in WP:GNG ? Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• They stated there is enough coverage to meet the requirements. Is that not clear enough for you to understand? Dream Focus 18:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's not enough because proof has been given that the topic doesn't meet GNG requirements. Given that AfDs are not votes, the inclusionists here will have to explain why requirements are met, in their opinion. Statements such as yours, or htom are no more than votes and don't belong in an AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: I agree there's enough to meet the requirement. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Same as above, WP:AFDFORMAT requires users to explain, not merely claim.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• They did explain it. They agreed there is enough coverage to meet the requirements. Dream Focus 18:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• No. They haven't explained anything. They have stated their ideology. They haven't provided a careful examination of the sources explaining why exactly the requirements would be met. AfDs are not votes, they are debates, and serious proof has been given that criteria are not met, so ignoring proof is not going to give strength to inclusionist votes.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2012 (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.

• Pages at deletion review