Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallifrey

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 merge‎ to Time Lord. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gallifrey

[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)

Following my recent Skaro nom, I'm also nominating Gallifrey as well. I took a more in-depth look at Gallifrey as, unlike, Skaro, it was mentioned a lot more in sources, requiring a more exhaustive look to pick apart the trivial mentions from actual analysis.

News sources only turned up plot recaps or mentions of media that featured Gallifrey as a location (With a few minor bits of trivia thrown in between).

Scholar, including a peruse through the Wikipedia Library, turned up a few hits, but all of them only had Gallifrey in the title, and barely mentioned it within the text, or only did so in terms of plot recap, context information, or trivial mentions. One source mentioned Gallifrey extensively, but this was due to it covering Gallifrey Base and Gallifrey One, fansites that take Gallifrey's name but do not themselves give notability to Gallifrey due to having no correlation beyond naming.

Books turned up similarly, also pulling up a Gallifrey Base/Gallifrey One source, but did pull up one actually good hit of WP:SIGCOV in the form of the book "Ruminations, Peregrinations, and Regenerations: A Critical Approach to Doctor Who," which covers Gallifrey's society in an analytical manner for a few pages. This was the only hit I found, however, and every other book source was official material, trivial mentions, or only being mentioned as part of background or plot recap.

Given there is only one piece of actual coverage, and the rest of the sources either fall under WP:NOTPLOT or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, I don't believe this subject meets the WP:GNG. It has a viable AtD in the form of Time Lord, the species who hails from Gallifrey and is heavily associated with it in-canon, but it doesn't seem to have any individual notability separate from any other facet of the show. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the scope of Doctor Who fandom, the BEFORE as articulated above is simply not credible. Of course RS'es exist beyond what the nom portrays, GNG is met, etc. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I should probably elaborate a bit. Nom cites NOTPLOT when discussing sources. That's a critical party foul here, because an RS that summarizes a work of fiction is in the process being transformative and hence secondary: Plot summaries count towards notability. NOTPLOT applies only to how we describe fictional elements on Wikipedia--that is, not entirely in universe. A non-Wikipedia page can't fail NOTPLOT because NOTPLOT only applies to Wikipedia itself. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very confused as to what kind of point you're trying to say here. Yes, NOTPLOT covers how we describe them on site... but how is an all-plot summary source going to change that? It's still running afoul of NOTPLOT because the Wikipedia article is still entirely plot, even with a citation. Your definition of NOTPLOT does not align with what the policy is actually saying: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

Additionally, your original argument before your clarification is entirely a Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument by dismissing my entire nomination on the grounds that there must be something else. I've given a summary of my BEFORE, and if you feel it's still inadequate, then feel free to do a search of your own to double check my findings, but dismissing the nom without any actual grounding is just bad play. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clear: your misunderstanding of NOTPLOT demonstrates, within itself, the incompetence of your nomination. You yourself said, in part rest of the sources either fall under WP:NOTPLOT. Full stop: Sources can't fail NOTPLOT. Plot summaries are transformative, and a non-trivial, independent, reliable source consisting solely of plot summary is an appropriate RS that contributes to notability. The fact that a Wikipedia article wouldn't be appropriate if ONLY plot summary does nothing to stop any number of such sources from contributing to notability. Thus, I AGF that you are sufficiently mistaken to genuinely think you did a decent job of BEFORE, rather than actively malicious, because you freely admit you saw and discarded multiple sources that contribute to notability. I don't have to prove which sources these were: you acknowledged they existed in your nomination. Thus SOURCESMUSTEXIST isn't a proper characterization of anything I've said: You yourself said in your original nomination there were a sufficient number of adequate sources to establish notability, only (again, reading it in a charitablie light) failed to recognize them as such. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether pure plot summaries demonstrate notability is an academic point, since we would need other sources to write an article that does not run afoul of WP:NOTPLOT. A seasoned editor surely understands this (as indeed you seem to), and an actual WP:AGF reading of the nomination would read it in that light. TompaDompa (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's one clearly appropriate source in the nom, and one from Daranios below, so GNG is met and all those "NOTPLOT sources" [sic] are perfectly good sources with which to flesh out an article on a fictional topic. Jclemens (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but that (there are other sources that are usable, so we can use the plot summaries in addition to flesh out the article) is a different point from the one you made previously (plot summaries themselves demonstrate notability). If you are to be charitable when you disagree with someone, that means arguing against the strongest possible version of their argument. That's not what you did originally. TompaDompa (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you're overlooking the fact that NOTPLOT outright states that what you're arguing for does not overrule NOTPLOT. To cite NOTPLOT in a bit more depth: "Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." NOTPLOT requires the content to be more multifaceted than just plot summary. Being verifiable doesn't automatically make a subject notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to muddle the difference between sources and our presentation. Only once we've ascertained that a topic is notable--and this is, as noted in my comment above this of the same datestamp--do we worry about how to assemble a fictional article. We can do so from sources that don't contribute to notability. The plethora of all-plot sources is only a problem if you think 1) DUE demands proportional coverage for such sources, and 2) NOT outranks NPOV. That's a different discussion. Jclemens (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Time Lord; most of the article is about Time Lords as well (and most of the plot is similar between the two), and anything that is not can be inserted in a new section, perhaps 'Planet'. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who Is The Doctor 2: The Unofficial Guide to Doctor Who has a two-page chapter "Psychic Papers: Gallifrey" with commentary on the how, why, and impact of the presentation of Gallifrey, plus some similar commentary focussed solely on the episode "Hell Bent". Which I guess would work equally well as commentary on Gallifrey as a setting of Time Lord society or Time Lord society located on Gallifrey. Daranios (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios it's a decent source, but the bulk of it is not really describing Gallifrey, and instead discussing Time Lord society and how it has changed throughout the show. Gallifrey is referred to only in terms of the setting of stories covering Time Lords, used as an umbrella term to refer to the Time Lords, or only referred to in a summary of plot developments or a synopsis of given events. Nearly everything about this coverage has an intrinsic tie to Time Lords, and strengthens the rationale that Gallifrey isn't really individually separate from Time Lords. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time you've decided a source is inappropriate because it covers a slightly different facet or phrasing of a topic. That's not how DUE works; we don't get to call some sources on a topic in or out of bounds--that is us sitting in judgment on reliable sources, when the policies demand that the RS'es shape our coverage. Jclemens (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If topic X is exclusively or predominantly covered by sources in the context of topic Y, that is fairly strong evidence that topic X is better treated as an aspect of topic Y rather than a separate topic altogether. WP:PAGEDECIDE, not WP:DUE, is the most relevant to this. TompaDompa (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Time Lord or keep. I think with the two sources + many more with the listed drawbacks it would be possible to write a non-stubby article which also fullfills WP:NOTPLOT. And some commentary, like the wow-effect of letting Gallifrey appear in the show and connected risks will be a bit akward to incorporate into the suggested target. On the other hand I agree that most commentary on Gallifrey is linked to its population/society, so there would be overlap between those two articles. Daranios (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Time Lord per above; all sources on the planet double up on discussing the species and society it was home to. SilverTiger12 (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Time Lord - The planet and its history is already covered extensively on the Time Lord article, and any sourced information from this article that is missing there, that isn't just overly detailed plot information, can be merged over. As mentioned above, the topic of the Time Lords and their home world are so intertwined in sources that, per WP:NOPAGE, it makes far more sense for them to be covered together here. Rorshacma (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. This is another minor topic that sources cover in the context of an existing topic. I don't believe there is WP:SIGCOV for a separate article, and either way, the topic is best covered under one article. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2024 (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.