Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of Mata Nui
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 Delete - No evidence of notability, no reliable third-party sources, etc. Black Kite 00:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Order of Mata Nui
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is an in-universe repetition of the Bionicle articles plot sections without any information to justify its own article. As such, it is purely duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Sources seem to point towards forum posts and the like. As nom said, article duplicates material found elsewhere. Article does not meet WP:PLOT. TN‑X-Man 14:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per our First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Bionicle of which published version exists. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as plot summary based upon unreliable sources, thus failing verifiability and providing no evidence of notability. Jakew (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- As indicated above, published reliable sources exist from which the article can be improved and verfied. Sincrely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The link which you kindly provided above is to an Amazon search for "Bionicle Encyclopaedia". Even if the results are encyclopaedias in the conventional sense of the word, what evidence is there that any of these books contain information about the Order of Mata Nui? For that matter, if they do provide information, how do you know that it constitutes significant coverage and not, say, trivial mention? Jakew (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Bionicle Encyclopedia demonstrates that Bionicle subjects are consistent with what Wikipedia is, i.e not just a general encyclopedia, but also specialized encylopedia. The fact that in addition to that book, there are other reference books about Bionicle, this article has realistic potential. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that we evidently disagree on our interpretations of the first pillar, LGRdC. Personally, I do not take it to mean that we should incorporate equivalent content (or in this case, speculative content) to every single work calling itself an "encyclopaedia". I do take it to mean that we can cover specialised subjects beyond those covered by a general encyclopaedia, but those subjects must be notable (as established by appropriate sources), and verifiable in a manner appropriate to a tertiary source. Although I think it reasonable to relax the burden of evidence somewhat when there is evidence that sources actually do exist, I believe it is inappropriate to keep an article in the hope that they might exist. Jakew (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps, because I take the First pillar to mean that a combination paperless general encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs can and should in fact contain just about anything worthy enough to be in actual published (not just other wikis, but published books) general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and alamanacs as a truly invaluable reference guide that provides a real comprehensive service to humanity. Due to our ever expanding community, I do not believe we have to worry about growing so large that we cannot somehow maintain these articles. Given that in addition to the encyclopedia that turned up on the Amazon.com search, I think it is reasonable that a thorough read of those sources (obviously something that cannot be done by volunteers in a five day AfD, but we don't need to as there's no deadline) and reviews of those sources had a realistic potential to allow for a better article. Plus, some of these fictional franchises that are still popular keep having additional elements coming out that only adds to their notability. Plus, for better or worse, these policy pages on things like verifiability seem to change in some manner every time I look at them. On one hand, it's nice that our policies are fluid, but on the other hand the fact that anyone can alter them at any given time makes it sometimes hard to know when someone cites them which version he or she is referring to and whether or not that version has consensus. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that we evidently disagree on our interpretations of the first pillar, LGRdC. Personally, I do not take it to mean that we should incorporate equivalent content (or in this case, speculative content) to every single work calling itself an "encyclopaedia". I do take it to mean that we can cover specialised subjects beyond those covered by a general encyclopaedia, but those subjects must be notable (as established by appropriate sources), and verifiable in a manner appropriate to a tertiary source. Although I think it reasonable to relax the burden of evidence somewhat when there is evidence that sources actually do exist, I believe it is inappropriate to keep an article in the hope that they might exist. Jakew (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Bionicle Encyclopedia demonstrates that Bionicle subjects are consistent with what Wikipedia is, i.e not just a general encyclopedia, but also specialized encylopedia. The fact that in addition to that book, there are other reference books about Bionicle, this article has realistic potential. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The link which you kindly provided above is to an Amazon search for "Bionicle Encyclopaedia". Even if the results are encyclopaedias in the conventional sense of the word, what evidence is there that any of these books contain information about the Order of Mata Nui? For that matter, if they do provide information, how do you know that it constitutes significant coverage and not, say, trivial mention? Jakew (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- As indicated above, published reliable sources exist from which the article can be improved and verfied. Sincrely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources means no notability. Graevemoore (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen no evidence to suggest definitively that this subject is not covered significantly in independent reliable sources nor that it is not notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- That argument flies in the face of thousands of years of philosophical consideration about burden of proof. It is fallacious to assume that something exists without evidence to indicate that it does, and prudent to assume that something does not exist given that same lack. You are attacking the basic precepts of thought and logic. Graevemoore (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence has been provided that suggests sources are likely to exist. AfDs consider potential, not just the current state. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- The existence of first-party and licensed material has no bearing on the existence of independent sources. None whatsoever. Graevemoore (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence has been provided that suggests sources are likely to exist. AfDs consider potential, not just the current state. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- That argument flies in the face of thousands of years of philosophical consideration about burden of proof. It is fallacious to assume that something exists without evidence to indicate that it does, and prudent to assume that something does not exist given that same lack. You are attacking the basic precepts of thought and logic. Graevemoore (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen no evidence to suggest definitively that this subject is not covered significantly in independent reliable sources nor that it is not notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:01, 19 May 2008 (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.
