Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Millennium

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. Neıl ☎ 10:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Millennium

Silver Millennium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:FICT, fictional location/kingdom within the Sailor Moon series. Article consists of plot and WP:OR sourced solely from primary sources and fansites. Half the article is on characters already covered in other articles and on the Silver Crystal, which is covered with sufficient detail in Sailor Moon (character). Collectonian (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's no AFD tag in the article -- did Twinkle mess up again? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Doh, yes, it appears it did. Fixing. Collectonian (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Describes a location, plot devices, and characters which are central to the story and which, despite what the nom claims, are not covered elsewhere. Valid as an extension of the main article and character articles. --Masamage ♫ 18:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this story--unlike most-- is notable enough that it justifies such articles. DGG (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - zero assertion of notability through reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic material. All sources present are fan sites and source material itself. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Pertinent information into main article, and redirect - Recall sometime back Soul Society was merged into Bleach (manga) earlier this year. The same reasoning would apply here. There is no real world notability to warrant a separate article. [note: can anyone find that AFD?] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, that AFD seems a little more contentious than I recall. Still support merge re-direct. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Despite the subject's importance to a highly notabile series/franchise, this seems to skirt the edge of WP:FICT. I note that a fair amount of the information, important to covering the series in an encyclopedic manner, does not seem to be covered elsewhere (counting the stuff reliably sourced to primary sources) and should retained somewhere. Because of this and for size concerns, I'm inclined to a weak keep, though I would support a merge into the main article per the Soul Society precident (which is of reoughly comperable notability and importance). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I dunno. Looking over the main Sailor Moon article and how it's organized, do you still support a merge? It seems to me like this kind of thing would be excruciatingly out-of-place. There's already so, so much to cover there. --Masamage ♫ 23:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • What about a merge into Dark Kingdom arc for the Silver Millennium stuff (and rainbow crystal stuff) and Sailor Moon R for the Crystal Tokyo stuff? -Malkinann (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
        • That's not a bad idea, actually. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
          • That's not quite satisfying for me, because Crystal Tokyo is the reincarnation of the Moon Kingdom--they're both the Silver Millennium--so it seems like they should be together. Not only that, but both kingdoms have crucial importance in the last two arcs of the story as well as the first. This is especially true of Dream/Supers, where Nehellenia, the Amazoness Quartet, Elios, the Golden Crystal, and Princess Lady Serenity are all brand-new Silver Millennium concepts (past and present). It would be much more difficult to have to reexplain in all of those places what the Silver Millennium is/was/will be/represents. --Masamage ♫ 05:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per previous dicustions. It has Chacters that fit here best, it has locations we can't cover as our location page was deleated Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. While this topic appears to be more notable than many of the AFDs in the fiction cat, it still does not appear to have received significant coverage from sources independent of the subject matter. The listed sources are all primary sources, non-reliable fansites dedicated to in-universe content only, and/or simply passing mention. Also, the article is most plot summary with little real-world context or analysis. Without acceptable sources, this article cannot be improved to pass WP:FICT or WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 16:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Insufficient secondary sources is an argument for cleanup, not deletion. Sailor Moon has had academic papers written about it; I'm not convinced that every single one fails to mention its backstory. --Masamage ♫ 18:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • A lack of secondary sources indicates that notability cannot be established, which in turn indicates that a major part of Wikipedia inclusion policy cannot be satisfied. Simply put, non-notable topics, with notability defined as significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject matter, are not suitable for this project. Papers written about Sailor Moon that merely mention Silver Milennium are not good enough; again, significant coverage of the specific topic would necessary. And that's only relevant if you can find such sources in the first place, which generally don't exist for a specific element of fictional universe. On top of the that, this article is almost entirely plot summary with no real-world context or analysis, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and without suitable secondary sources it is not possible to add such content which doesn't violate WP:V or WP:OR. Once unencyclopedic, in-universe content has been removed from the article, there would be virtually nothing left. Hence, deletion is appropriate. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Lack of secondary sources indicates only that the article is low-quality, not that it is unsalvageably useless, and is not a justifiable argument for deletion. Furthermore, coverage of in-universe details of fictional subjects is completely appropriate and important where it helps explain the franchise; the Silver Millennium derives its notability and its real-world coverage by being a driving-force to the plot of the Sailor Moon series itself. This article bearing its name exists only because there is too much to explain about this aspect for it all to fit in the main article. Just because secondary sources are not in the article yet doesn't mean they can never be; in fact, the only thing that would stop such sources from being found and used to improve the article would be the article's deletion. (The same can be said of other English-language Category:Fictional locations articles that have this same problem. Clearly Middle-earth and Hogwarts need coverage, and each has certainly been written about and examined. The refs just need to be found and used. The same is true of the Silver Millennium, especially in Japanese-language sources--which of course take time to obtain, but we are doing our best.) --Masamage ♫ 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't know what to say except what I have already said. No secondary sources = no establishment of notability = no place on Wikipedia. Inherited notability is a contested issue (it's got its own entry on WP:ATA) and mentioning it will not likely sway anyone who doesn't believe in the concept already. You imply that this article is the result of WP:SIZE issue, which might be a valid argument if there was enough encyclopedic, policy-acceptable material for stand alone page, but currently the content is almost entirely WP:NOT#PLOT summary and perhaps WP:OR. You're not addressing the issue that the current content breaks policy at all. Lastly, you keep saying that sources might exist somewhere and they might be found at some point in the future, but that doesn't cut it. The article is currently on the chopping block and we are looking at it in its current state. It is very easy to recreate deleted material if and when appropriate sources are available. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 23:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. About quality and style, the article is IMO well written and it is the proper place to expand relevant information introduced in other articles. About references, the ones cited are IMO relevant and notable, as they come from sources that are authoritative given the nature of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.90 (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • All of the sources are first party or fan sites that fail WP:RS; ergo, it fails WP:N and should be deleted. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Emily Ravenwood is a published academic in media fields who also maintains a Sailor Moon fansite.-Malkinann (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That doesn't refer to the subject of this article at all, but rather to the characters and the themes of the show, making it more pertinent to individual character articles and that of the show. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The bits that are cited from Ravenwood's site pertain to Queen Serenity and the Silver Crystal, which are both covered in the Silver Millennium article. Rest assured, we have used Ravenwood's site as a source where appropriate elsewhere. -Malkinann (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Which does not address my point. The subject of the article is the Silver Millennium. Her article addresses thematic elements of the series and specific characters. It doesn't provide notability for the subject of the article. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you please reword your point, then? -Malkinann (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To note that one source that doesn't even address the article's subject (barely) passes WP:RS? I don't think I have to. As it stands, the article asserts zero notability. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I asked you to restate your point in good faith because your point was unclear to me. The Silver Millennium article was created from the merge of a few different articles - Silver Crystal, Queen Serenity, Princesses (Sailor Moon) and Silver Millennium. They were grouped under the "Silver Millennium" name as a matter of organisation. They are all subjects of the article. -Malkinann (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The subject of the article is what you place in the title. You're talking about the fictional place Silver Millennium in which these characters happen to reside. These characters aren't the subject of the article, this fictional place is. Regardless, having a lone source that barely passes WP:RS that doesn't address the subject of the article at all (heck the sentence it's used for is: "She is portrayed as having been a 'good ruler'." - so what?) doesn't make this article notable. It's not a bad piece for the main article in providing a source of reception for thematic elements, but it certainly has little to no relevance here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as well sourced and well presented article about a topic from a notable franchise that meets are notability and verfiability guidelines and plicies. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable and well-sourced. WP:FICT is void per WP:CREEP. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Can you please elaborate on why notability guidelines on fiction would not apply to this fictional topic? Also, can you please explain how the article does not fail WP:NOT#PLOT? Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
perhaps everyone should realise that there are no agreed notability guidelines for fiction at this point. Essentially everything relating to those guideline is disputed. It would be very easy for me to claim there were established guidelines, and they supported whatever is my view, but there isn't even agreement over keeping the WP:NOT statement that WP is not a place for plot summaries, let alone how to word it. DGG (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If policies change then we can apply the new standards accordingly. The possibility of future modifications to WP:NOT should not affect how we interpret it at this moment. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Not even when applicable guidelines are under requests for comment? Please note this RfC is on the issue of what spinouts are appropriate and how much real-world information is appropriate in spinout articles. -Malkinann (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That RfC is dead and it didn't produce any results, but that's inconsequential to my point. What I said stands - the possibility of future changes shouldn't dictate how we interpret policy in this moment. I could easily make an argument that WP:FICT is currently too permissive and that it will naturally be changed to be more strict regarding content inclusion, so therefore this article should certainly be deleted. But I wouldn't do that because using speculated modifications to existing policies as the basis for my argument wouldn't make any sense. Doctorfluffy (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, WP:PLOT is being reworded too... Currently they're both unstable policies. -Malkinann (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't change what I've said. It would be illogical to apply anything other than the current version of the policies. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 15:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a little illogical to apply the policy very strictly at all, I think is what she's getting at. At least not the parts that are obviously mutable and might be different next week. Sticking to the stable areas for now saves a lot of time and effort and argument and makes somewhat more sense. --Masamage ♫ 15:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I get the point, I just don't agree. Everything on Wikipedia is subject to revision. The only thing we can do is look at what the policies say right now and interpret them on a case by case basis. I hate to use analogies, but suppose congress is considering a bill which would amend an existing law. Should police start enforcing the new version of the law simply because there is a proposed change? It's entirely possible that FICT or NOT#PLOT (or anything else) will be changed, but until consensus forms and that change is actually made, we can really only go on what the policy current says. We're getting off-topic here though. I still don't see how anyone could argue that this article isn't entirely plot summary, and the sources are pretty terrible. As notable as the series may be, I see no evidence that Silver Milennium itself has received direct, substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 16:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
(reset indent) "I still don't see how anyone could argue that this article isn't entirely plot summary" -- Really? This confuses me, because most of it is simply not story information at all, but fictional-factoid information. Granted, it certainly needs more out-of-universe context, but most of the latter sections scarcely mention the plot; instead, they describe aspects and characteristics of things and people, explaining who they are and how they work.
I've just gone in and trimmed down some of the story-dump in the Moon Kingdom section, and I also removed some unnecessary fansite references. I hacked out a ton of OR when Collectonian complained about that some weeks ago, and as far as I can tell there's nothing egregious of that sort left over either. The only big problem I see is the lack of secondary coverage, but like I say, I'm reasonably confident that that exists and can be found in the near future. --Masamage ♫ 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I usually use "plot summary" to mean any information that simply describes objects, events, or people within the fictional universe, even if it's not direct regurgitation of the story. Merely reorganizing elements of the work in a different manner doesn't change that the fact that it's still summarization of what happens in the plot. Anyway, I think I've said all I can about this. I'm not seeing notability or real-world context. If you're certain sources will be found to remedy those issues then perhaps you could userify the page until such time. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 20:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You've been saying "near future" and sources must exist for weeks, if not months. You used that claim to keep removing the notability tag from the article. Yet, still nothing has been produced, because its highly likely they do exist. You really think one decade they will, userify this, but it does not meet WP:FICT (nor WP:N for those who want to call FICT inapplicable), and no shread of evidence that it has significant coverage in reliable third party sources has yet to be produced.Collectonian (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've also seen the "in the future" argument placed before everywhere, and it doesn't work. It's notable now, or it's not notable. Doing otherwise falls under WP:CRYSTAL. This argument was posed for Akatsuki (Naruto) for months on end, and it was recently merged (this is weird, a few months ago I would have never dreamed of using the Naruto articles as examples given the poor state they were in, such irony). As it stands, the article fails WP:N, and that's not going to change until secondary sources are added to assert notability. Don't dodge around the point - you have sources or you don't. If you don't, then this article should be deleted. If you happen upon enough sources in the future, you are free to recreate the article in a manner that meets WP:N, and before then, I would be happy to userfy this page for you. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
My argument is that it is notable now, because it's a driving force behind the series proper. People have stated that they disagree with me, which is fine, but my own opinion stands unchanged. As far as I'm concerned, the series notability is sufficient to help the article survive the deletion attempt; afterward, it can be improved and fleshed out more and we can work up a real-world coverage section. And thank you, but I am perfectly capable of userfying pages for myself.
Meanwhile, Collectonian, please back up your accusation that I made any claim of the sort when removing the notability tag. My edit summaries state very clearly that I removed it because I thought that concern was covered adequately by the in-universe tag. You made no argument or response, so I assumed that you had accepted my statement and moved on. It's in unspeakably poor taste to step back at the time and then just lie about it later. --Masamage ♫ 00:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't step back, I didn't want to violate 3RR and you made it clear at that time that you weren't going to listen no matter what anyone said. Collectonian (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You still don't get to make stuff up to explain my actions, particularly when I have already explained them myself. Furthermore, you would not have been violating 3RR, you could very easily have started up a discussion on the article's talk page and gotten more people involved, and your continued refusal to assume good faith from me dates back to when somebody else vaguely associated with me insulted you. I am absolutely willing to listen and have civil conversations, and I am hurt and offended by your repeated accusations to the contrary. --Masamage ♫ 01:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Your argument that it is notable because it is "important" to the plot is ridiculous and unsubstantiated. You have no verifiable reliable sources independent of the topic that provide non-trivial coverage of the subject, and until you do, any claim you have that the article is notable is mere conjecture, which is not sufficient to push it through an AfD. Something is not notable merely because you believe or say it is notable. Anyhow, for the userfy comment, seeing as you aren't an administrator, you may find it a tad difficult to access the page after it's deleted. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I am an in fact an administrator. And I didn't say my opinion rules the world; I only said that I have one. Since you don't make any factual claims about the subject's relative importance to the series and just attack my assertion as "ridiculous", I see nothing else here to respond to. --Masamage ♫ 01:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The burden of proof lies with you. Topics are not considered inherently notable, and it not required to prove non-notability to be subject to deletion. In fact, it's the opposite. Notability is established through substantial coverage with multiple independent sources. Without such sources, a topic "defaults" to non-notable and, in turn, is not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. I believe that you know about the series and that you truly think this subject deserves an article, but your personal assertions of notability are insufficient. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 01:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your non-confrontational tone. I do understand all that, but I don't really get why this topic absolutely doesn't get to inherit its notability from the series itself. It's not about what I think, and I never said it was--if the series is demonstratably notable, which it is, and this is a demonstratably big chunk of the series, which it is, why shouldn't that be enough to justify an article? Especially since merging it in would lower the quality of the main article? --Masamage ♫ 02:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, "relative importance" is irrelevant and "ridiculous" would be a way to describe your argument - you're asserting that it's notable because you're saying it's important to the series, or otherwise, notable since it's notable. I apologize if I'm blunt, but that's essentially what your argument is. Multiple independent sources are how you definitively establish notability. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No, that is not my argument. It's not important because it "just is". What I'm saying is that it's notable to the real world because it's notable to a series that is notable to the real world. There are two different realms of significance operating here, real and fictional, and I'm saying they should interact to some extent (though not much further than this). --Masamage ♫ 02:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: No article can really "fail" WP:FICT at this point, because it says at the top of the page, "The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'." Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:03, 8 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.