Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agent (The Matrix) (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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KartikeyaS (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agent (The Matrix)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The character Agent Smith is definitely noteworthy and memorable, being the main antagonist of The Matrix series. However, the other agents are non-notable and forgettable, and this article fails WP:GNG and is an example of WP:ALLPLOT fancruft. It is unnecessary FANDOM-level material. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Matrix_(franchise)#Agents - I concur with the nom's analysis, but it is a reasonable redirect to the appropriate section on the main article for the franchise. Rorshacma (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. I concur here as well. A redirect would be of better service to our readers. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments brought up only refer to the current state of the article. Did the nominator (or anyone else so far) actually do a WP:BEFORE search? Because aside from the sources present in the article, a Google Scholar search alone already gives numerous sources, which provide both plot summary and analysis. Sure, some of that content is about Agent Smith specifically (the importance of that character is undoubted), but many also deal with the agents as a group. (If other individual agents may be "non-notable and forgettable" is not the major issue here, as the article is about the agents collectively.)

Examples: Trinity as the "Real" Hero of "The Matrix" deals with the philosophical position the agents are in; Wake up! Gnosticism and Buddhism in The Matrix: the role of the agents when seeing The Matrix as an allegory of Christian Gnosticism or Buddhism; WAKE UP, NEO: WHITE IDENTITY, HEGEMONY, AND CONSCIOUSNESS IN "THE MATRIX": the agents as representing white supremacists (ideas of that are already in the article, though unreferenced); [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] give us plot summary, definitions of the agents as a group, as well as bits of analysis. Do I need to enumerate more?

And if all of that should still not be seen as enough to meet WP:GNG, it at least proves that the subject is treated in academic sources. So at least some plot summary should be merged into the suggested target article, where it is as yet absent. Daranios (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: As you said, a lot of those articles in the Google Scholar search are actually hits for Agent Smith (The Matrix) (as well as some articles you explicitly cited). I just don't see a reason why we need an article on the Agents as a group and Agent Smith separately as a character when surely this would be best taken together? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: In my opinion taking the two subjects together can work, but is not "surely" the best solution. I think it would be worse than treating them separately, because: Agent Smith is a somewhat special but fairly representative Agent in the first movie, but something quite different in the later ones. And a number of conclusions about the agents drawn in the secondary sources can only be drawn when looking at them as a group, like e.g. them being a representation of white supremacists. So a combined article would constantly have to explain what refers to Agent Smith, what to the agents as a group including Agent Smith and what to the agents except Agent Smith. That would make the article less readable and concise. On the other hand, what's the drawback of having two articles? Sure there will be some duplication, but as Wikipedia is not paper, that's not really a problem. Daranios (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many sources see the agents as the franchise's version of men in black. As that article does not cover this yet, there is clearly scope for improvement per our policy WP:ATD which states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 12:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions...
— Agent Brown
Keep - This is another declaration of subjective importance. The only policy mentioned is GNG, but given rationales pertaining to WP:LISTN such as this, even that's questionable. These nominations need better quality control and criteria enforcement. Dark knight 2149 19:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage including scholarly articles, therefore passes WP:GNG. The articles main topic may be different but still have significant coverage of this subject, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think I lokked into this a while ago. The issue is that the topic is likely notable, due to some scholarly sources analyzing the concept of the agent a stereotypical man-in-black government worker but our current article is pure WP:FANCRUFT (in the form of pure plot summary) that is borderline a WP:TNT territory. PS. Maybe Daranios could start a reception section, using sources they found? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references from secondary sources, hopefully showing that there is already a bit of content which is treated in academic sources and therefore is not "Fancruft". As my efforts of improvement have been cut short in other discussions recently, I am not motivated to put more work into this at this time. As most secondary sources listed above are freely available, I invite User:Piotrus and User:Zxcvbnm, who seem to be more bothered by the current state of the article than me, to start a reception section. Daranios (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by my !delete opinion (but this time WP:TNT, per Piotrus). Could there be enough info to create an entire well sourced article? Maybe, but it's better off starting from scratch. There's hardly anything salvageable in the current incarnation, much like the deleted previous versions of the (in-universe) Matrix._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that some sections are based on reliable sources, what instance of WP:TNT would apply to the article in its current state? Or, if you think starting from scratch would be better, would you, User:Zxcvbnm, be willing to create such a new article after this one has blown up? Daranios (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about create, but I'd certainly be willing to check the draft for notability and approve it if someone wished to create one._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, what about the first question, which of the reasons given in WP:TNT would apply in the first place? And secondly, if you would not create a new and better version yourself, and noone else would for the time being (a likely scenario), we would have none. How is not having an article better for Wikipedia than having this imperfect article? Or, third point, why not keep this article until you or someone else willing has created the draft of a better one, and then delete and replace this article, rather than the other way round? We are all here to improve Wikipedia, not impoverish it, aren't we? Daranios (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone just wanted an all-plot summary of what an Agent is they'd be better served by going to their article elsewhere. I go to FANDOM for indepth, in-universe descriptions of fictional minutia. Given that the Agents are described in exacting detail elsewhere I don't see the harm of letting this article go._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soo... no reason to apply WP:TNT. So we should not apply it.

More specifically to what you wrote, I think Fandom is great, I am happy that there is an indepth article, and I think such an article there should have more plot summary than the Wikipedia article. But we are not here to discuss the values of Fandom, we are here to make Wikipedia better. Daranios (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a start, but I meant that we need to write a proper section in reception, scholarly analysis. For now, the article is still TNT-able. For start, we should remove all that unreferenced fancruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I agree that a reception section would be a good idea. Please don't hesitate to go for it and create one! For the other thing, "Fancruft" in itself is not argument for deletion, much less for WP:TNT. To quote the essay you put forward: "If the user comes across fancruft, an approach is to assume that the article or topic can be improved." If I am mistaken, please point out which part of WP:TNT would apply to our subject here. Daranios (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are good academic sources here. The subject is notable, and Daranios has added reliable sources to the article. Talk of TNT is a clear overreaction. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article is severely lacking in sources in some places. Is Sparknotes even a reliable source? But there's clear sustained coverage here to meet the WP:GNG, and the article has clear WP:POTENTIAL. Would also accept a merge depending on how the article improves, now or later. Jontesta (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Matrix series characters, but given the reasonings provided by other users like Daranios and Piotrus, there should be no prejudice for the article to be recreated once a proper development and reception section is drafted in. Not in favor of delete or TNT. Haleth (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: Why would anyone vandalize a useful section of the page, and for the vandalism to go unnoticed for an extended period of time, is beyond me. Anyway, nominator has withdrawn the AfD request, so this discussion should be closed asap. Haleth (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wow, the article already had an "Analysis" section in the past, which was remove by an anonymous user! I have restored it, it features four additional secondary sources not yet discussed here. I ask especially Piotrus and Haleth, who requested a reception section, as well as Zxcvbnm to have a look at it and consider, if that, together with the other secondary sources, doesn't change their opinion. Daranios (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic. I had added an "Analysis" section some time ago to reflect the notability, and it looks like some fancruft-loving IP editor removed it and inserted excessive in-universe information. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is kept it really should be moved to Agents (The Matrix).★Trekker (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I withdraw my nom due to the discovery of the Analysis section, it appears the fancruft nature of the article was due to vandalism-ish actions. The current state of the article seems much more encyclopedic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, meets WP:GNG, and withdrawn by nominator. Right cite (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.