Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kigo (Kim Possible)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] comments moved from page

Given that the primary mission statement of Wiki is to act as an online encyclopedia of unlimited size and potential I can only conclude that the triumvirate of criterion does not exist to keep out articles just because they are obscure or of little value to a majority or even a minority of people. Instead, it is obvious that the triumvirate of criterion is meant to act as a means of preventing Beavis and Butt-head from pulling a bunch of “facts” out of their nether regions and putting them up on Wiki just to jerk people around, or, as a means to keep submissions from failing to meet a certain standard of quality.

The very fact that WP:IAR exists suggests the creators of Wiki knew that in some cases original research would be the only source of information on certain subjects, and that they did not wish absolute observance of the triumvirate of criterion to prevent its inclusion if said research held informative merit. Otherwise, WP:IAR would not have been included and absolute observance to the triumvirate of criterion would be required by all Wiki articles.

Refusing to allow any articles into Wiki that are not first researched by another source does Wiki a great disservice by crippling it as a reference for more obscure or limited topics that will not be published by other sources simply because no publisher sees the worth of addressing such a subject. (Or in this specific case, will never be published because everyone and their dog can imagine what the Disney Corporation would do to anyone crazy enough to publish an article stating that lesbian subtext exists in what is currently their most popular cartoon show, targeted towards young children.) So long as the information holds some degree of merit and has quality of an equal standard to a referenced article, it should be allowed to stand.

Subtext exists within the Kim Possible show, and whether it came to be as a result of purposeful inclusion or accidental inclusion via sloppy writing is irrelevant, because a significant portion of the fan base has recognized that subtext, just as within the Xena fan base. Even though the Xena writers and creators have issued absolute statements that they will never clarify the relationship between Xena and Gabrielle any further than “it’s up to the fans to decide,” the subtext supported relationship exists as the lead in for the Love Interests section of the Wiki Xena page, despite the fact that it’s pretty much a textbook definition of an “unverifiable fact” that exists only in the minds of the fan base, and has been accepted by Wiki for years now.

KiGo is a term recognized by a significant portion of the Kim Possible fan base, and more importantly, by the writers & creators of the show itself. Whether it is supported or not is irrelevant to the fact that the term is recognized by them.

The revised article addresses the existence of the term KiGo and its subtext origins as well as the interest the fan base has gained in it, along with recognizing commonly held objections and support for that interpretation of said subtext from both sides in an unbiased manner. I believe that the current article holds merit as an information reference on the term and said fan base interest, both pro and con, and is no less valid than the aforementioned Xena references.

As to the fact that the article exists as a separate page instead of a section within the Kim Possible TV show page, or in the Love Interests section of the Kim Possible (character) page, it was in fact originally a (much smaller) addition to said Love Interests section under the heading of Shego, referencing the term for the relationship and the fan base recognition of the subtext supporting it. As such, it was repeatedly removed by various Wiki editors who objected to its inclusion, as the history of the page will attest to. An agreement was concluded with more open-minded editors that the best way to proceed other than having constant edits every few hours over the controversial subject of said subtext was to create a separate page referencing the relationship terminology and subtext that would be linked to from said Love Interests section.

Objections based on the article referencing fan fiction are flawed, because Wiki objects to fan fiction when used as vanity or self-promotion, as noted in the relevant section of the fiction policy: “Fanfiction, on the other hand, may well be considered vanity (not by default, but often so), which is grounds for deletion.” The article references multiple authors over a significant time period of published works, so can hardly be considered vanity. If this is a point of contention for the Mods, all references to specific authors can easily be stripped from the article.

  • Geez, can an admin just close this before some other SPA writes a novel in here? Danny Lilithborne 04:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] more comments

  • Comment Pardon my quoting something from above but..."There's still no reliable sources cited. All the "citations" are to other Wikipedia articles, and Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source." Hmmm...sounds to me that, since Wikipedia is such an unreliable source, that Wikipedia itself, should be deleted and removed from the Internet. But, of course, we all know that the removal of this site is something that will not happen, but it should if we are to believe in your reasoning. Creativetoo 04:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Second-rate Wikilawyering will not help your case. Danny Lilithborne 05:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The comment you are referring to was referring to the guideline, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. In other words, Wikipedia articles shouldn't be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles. Tubezone 11:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] still more comments

      • Comment Interesting citing the lack of citations. In the Fandom section of the Xena:Warrior Princess page, there are five areas citing 'citations needed' and yet there is no objection to anything posted on that page...or that section. If citations are needed then that section of the Xena page should be deleted per some arguments of this ongoing discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Creativetoo (talk • contribs) 23:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
        • Comment If I gave a damn about Xena, I'd delete that section myself. Danny Lilithborne 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Has anyone bothered to look at the updated (and changed) page? or is everyone continuing to debate about the version that preceeded this discussion? Creativetoo 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment There's still no reliable sources cited. All the "citations" are to other Wikipedia articles, and Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Now it's an unreferenced essay about a fan fantasy fiction debate. Even if referenced, the sources (blogs and fan discussion fora) are not reliable sources per WP guidelines. The other issue about the subject, that it's speculative, unnotable fanfiction, haven't been addressed. Tubezone 23:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relax

Don't panic. The closing admin will be able to tell the difference between legitimate opinions and ones that are less legitimate. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, that's right. None of the "keep"-voters seem to have more than a dozen votes, and some have been created for only this page.
  • A note to the sock who voted delete. Two wrongs don't make a right. Trust the admins. Many of us aren't stupid. Bucketsofg 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)