Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 8
 |
- Should mergehistory be enabled for importers?
- Should WP:TITLEFORMAT take precedence over WP:CRITERIA?
- Open letter regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's potential disclosure of editors' personal information
- Extended-confirmed pending changes and preemptive protection in contentious topics
- Are portals encyclopedic, and are they appropriate redirect targets?
- Should recall petitions be limited to signatures only?
- Should the length of recall petitions be shortened?
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
- 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. The Keep rationales are not convincing - "4500 viewed this page" - "I can't think of a reason to delete it" - etc. Frankly, I suspect that given the ridicule that Brick has received over her article, deletion may well be the route of least embarrassment for her. Having said that, I'm guessing that if anyone wants to create a redirect to Daily Mail, that would not be unreasonable either. Black Kite (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Samantha Brick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A clear case of WP:BLP1E, being a non-notable writer who is currently in the media focus due to a single event. Not notable in and of herself. Also, largely unsourced other than thru this one incident. Also, see WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER- Alison ❤ 23:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - She's clearly in the news lately and notable for recentism, whether or not that lasts or not i don't know and so i support a delete. If she's still being talked about next year then we may have reason for an article. Otherwise just stick this paragraph in the Daily Mail article. Thanks Jenova20 00:06, 9 April 2012
- Keep 4,500 viewed this page in a single day according to the viewing stats. If people come to Wikipedia looking for info why are we trying to delete it? Quickbeam44 (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. blp1e. --JN466 02:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect to the Daily Mail. I'm sure Mrs. Brick would say that we're all jealous people because she's so lovely (and she is quite lovely), but the fact remains that there isn't a depth of coverage about her. All of the articles about her have been recent and so far this appears to be a clear cut case of WP:BLP1E. There's no way of knowing that she won't remain in the public eye, but there's no way of guaranteeing that she will. If someone wants to userfy this in the chance that she will get lasting coverage, then I have no problems with that, but she just doesn't meet notability guidelines at this time. As far as people accessing the page, we don't keep articles because WP:ITSUSEFUL or just because a person is popular in the here and now. Articles must be properly sourced and meet notability guidelines, which Brick doesn't at this point in time. She's only known for one event and that event in itself doesn't show any lasting notability at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have no problem with this being a redirect to the Daily Mail, with her being a brief mention in that article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep As the internet does I'm not even slightly doubtful we will see the article in witch Samantha was mentioned pop up and spike in popularity a number of times. It will get more than one exposure. Also this Wikipedia has already gotten a number of views. If people are looking than the article has use.
- The only problem with that is that we don't keep articles simply because it's useful or because it gets views. That's not how Wikipedia works. We also can't keep an article because someone thinks that Brick will be mentioned in the future or that she'll receive more notability. That's called crystal balling and is not a reason for keeping an article. We need to show that she's notable in the here and now per Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest and while it can be useful, we're not an indiscriminate collection of every random event and person that has, does, or will exist. You have to show that Brick passes WP:BIO if you want to keep the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Non-notable.--Smerus (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It is a clear cut case of WP:BLP1E. She was notable before the Daily Mail article, the article is not notable and the event is not notable. Bgwhite (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- DeleteFor the time being, this appears to be a case of flash-in-the-pan "fame". I think the page should be deleted for the same reason most memes don't warrant their own page. That being said, if she returns to the spotlight, you might want to merge this content w/ additional information found in the future.JoelWhy (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This AfD proposal has clearly been orchestrated by women who are bitter that they're not beautiful enough to merit a Wikipedia article. She has pointed out that 100% of men find her attractive, undoubtedly making her the most famous person in the world. AdamSommerton (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Curses!! Foiled again!
- Alison ❤ 00:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Curses!! Foiled again!
- Keep in spite of WP:Other stuff exists for one set of debate arguments, and because of WP:Other stuff exists for another such set. Both sets will get a fair airing as the discussion proceeds, but suffice it to say that the subject, at age 41, is not a novice at being in the news, both in writing and being written about. Her website, http://www.samanthabrick.com/ details sufficient writing and TV producing credits to make her notable without the burden of this somewhat demeaning and disparaging publicity that diminishes what appears to be a fairly notable career which, by all appearances, seems certainly deserving of a Wikipedia biographical entry on its own merits.—Roman Spinner (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. She is clearly not notable in her own right as a journalist under the standard criteria. She's a freelance writer who appears to write very occasionally for the Mail, as well as for other places presumably. Of course she's done stuff professionally, and her website will try to make the most of that - but her notability, such as it is, is clearly down to this one-off article and the resultant brief kerfuffle over it, which is not enough. This event should be mentioned in the Mail article (the fuss in reality is more about the paper and its bid to grab attention). N-HH talk/edits 11:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep She is a journalist at a major newspaper who has been found in the public spotlight recently. Cannot think of a single reason to delete and to not keep. Martyn Smith (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is not anything like consensus on deletion here. Is this not enough to bring the debate to a close and keep the article (with deletion heading removed)? Martyn Smith (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well no, she does not appear to be a staff journalist. She's a freelancer whose work is very occasionally published in the paper or its website (a few times a year by the look of this archive, mostly fluffy lifestyle or "look at me" pieces, which the Mail regularly commissions as one-off or occasional items from random individuals). There are thousands and thousands of occasionally published freelance writers, but most do not get their own WP biog, per our notability standards at WP:AUTHOR and also WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The only question is whether this one furore raises her above that bar, and, again, there's policy on that - WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:ONEEVENT. Also of course, deletion debates aren't generally decided on unanimity, or on the basis that one or two people - or even a majority - have "voted" for a keep, hence it's concluded there's no consensus to delete; it's about policy and weight of argument. If she establishes a reputation and notability above and beyond this one passing frenzy, that's another thing, but there's no real evidence for that yet. N-HH talk/edits 15:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Alison. The serious Keep arguments are doubtless well intentioned, but unpersuasive. Google hits is not our criteria for inclusion. And Roman Spinner's argument could be valid if there are nontrivial secondary sources focusing on her career beyond this one event, but so far those dots have not been connected here. We have a specific definition for what is meant by "notable", not only the colloquial "deserving of note". Martinp (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Andy Warhol once said that in the future we'd all be famous for fifteen minutes, and this is her [Samantha Brick's] moment in the spotlight. But the seconds are ticking away fast. So she wrote an article about her looks and suddenly she became public enemy number one. Maybe we could mention her in the context of media frenzy or some such similar article, but until she does something more significant on her own she doesn't stand up to the notability test. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)- Redirect on second thoughts to something like Daily Mail, and still for the same reason, WP:ONEEVENT. The event itself is notable enough to be mentioned in the Daily Mail article, particularly as the Mail attracted criticism from a journalist at another newspaper over issues relating to this event. A slimmed down version of the text could be included in that article, and Samantha Brick could safely be redirected there. I've taken a copy of this for now as I might work on it at a point in the future when this article may not be around, and it would be useful to have this material to hand. But really this is something that should have been added to the appropriate article to begin with because this subject is far too trivial for a standalone page. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- ok, as someone had already mentioned it in the article, I've merged the Samantha Brick text into a Criticism section, so this page could safely be redirected now as the section contains all the relevant facts. I suspect there is a more appropriate place, but the important thing is I've factored it in. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect on second thoughts to something like Daily Mail, and still for the same reason, WP:ONEEVENT. The event itself is notable enough to be mentioned in the Daily Mail article, particularly as the Mail attracted criticism from a journalist at another newspaper over issues relating to this event. A slimmed down version of the text could be included in that article, and Samantha Brick could safely be redirected there. I've taken a copy of this for now as I might work on it at a point in the future when this article may not be around, and it would be useful to have this material to hand. But really this is something that should have been added to the appropriate article to begin with because this subject is far too trivial for a standalone page. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect to Daily_mail#Criticism_of_the_Mail.27s_treatment_of_female_employees seems the most appropriate solution given the WP:1E nature of the article. --sparkl!sm hey! 10:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Daily Mail or somewhere similar, notable only for writing one stupid article. PatGallacher (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Merge into the Daily mail article. She's only notable for this one aticle.TheLongTone (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. I am opposed to a merge to Daily Mail#Criticism of the Mail's treatment of female employees, and in fact I shall suggest on the talk page of that article removal of the paragraph there, because that is (a) also a WP:NOTNEWS item of no serious or lasting significance, and (b) nothing to do with the Mail's treatment its employees. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2012 (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.
- 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. The discussion indicates that the sources for this have been found lacking, even after more were presented later in the discussion. From the best I can do from translating them, this assessment appears to be correct—most are press releases, trivial mentions in passing, or sources of questionable reliability.
Several arguments were discarded in the discussion due to being inconsistent with policy. On the Keep side, there was an assertion that fictional works can be based mainly or solely upon primary sources. This is incorrect. A lack of secondary reliable sources for the subject of any article, including a work of fiction, indicates that it is not an appropriate topic for a standalone article. In close relation, popularity has no bearing on notability, only reliable secondary source coverage does. On the Delete side, it was suggested that English sources count more toward notability than non-English. This is also incorrect, reliable sources in any language are acceptable. On the whole, however, the consensus is that adequate sourcing in any language has not been presented here. A lack of such sourcing is in all cases incompatible with a standalone article on the subject.
Some interest was expressed in a merge, but significant opposition to this idea was present as well. The idea should be discussed with editors on the target article before any merge is attempted. If the idea gains consensus, I'd be happy to userfy the material and history temporarily for the merge process. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Gensokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Since an editor Juhachi expressed on my talk page the sentiment that a recent page I created from a redirect, Gensokyo, may not meet the general notability guidelines, I wish to bring this to AfD to settle this question before working further on it. Content-wise, this page is a partial translation of the corresponding page on the Japanese Wikipedia.
The concern raised was that it relied primarily on primary sources, but I do think that this is a case where primary sources are more appropriate than secondary sources since it is covering a fictional world. Of course, adding a real-life perspective could be informative, but that is a separate issue from notability.
To people unfamiliar with Touhou Project, the major claim to notability is that it is an extremely popular doujin game series (in addition to some written works and Music CDs) noted especially for the amount of derivative works created for it. This is a fact that has been mentioned in several reliable sources: [9] [10] [11]. The last source noted that its derivative works are especially popular on Nico Nico Douga, a fact that can be verified through noting that "Touhou" is considered its own category on Nico Nico Douga. In fact, there are events such Reitaisai (Official website) dedicated entirely to it and its derivative works, an event covered in major news sources: [12] [13] [14]. There are, of course, plenty of other Touhou-only doujin events, such as Kouroumu (Wfficial website), etc. Given that it is an especially famous doujin game, whose claim to fame has been its number of derivative works, I would only suppose that it is at least notable as the worlds currently in Category:Fictional universes.
New questions? 16:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of anime- and manga-related deletion discussions. 十八 02:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Well, first I'll bring up WP:WAX, since the fact that other similar articles may exist in Category:Fictional universes does not mean this article has enough notability to require a separate article. Furthermore, even if the Touhou Project has met WP:GNG, its setting does not necessarily meet the same guidelines. While WP:NNC may not restrict the content already in the article, the article itself still must meet the GNG. Notability is not absorbed from the main article, as all articles much stand on their own when it comes to WP:N.
- I do not believe Gensokyo satisfies the GNG, and the article would surely be a hotbed for fancruft written in an in-universe perspective with little to no real-world content. Any such content in the article could easily go on the Touhou Wiki, which is in the external links section on the main article. I'll also bring up that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, specifically point 1. If the rest of the Japanese article were translated, Gensokyo would only contain information about it's fictional history, locales, "incidents" which deal with the plot of each game, and the races that inhabit the world. Even if real world content such as creation/conception were added, I don't see why that couldn't go in the main Touhou article.
- As stated at WP:FAN#Approach, even if we assume the article can be improved, the article may ultimately lack "a hook — one or more interesting facts to attract or pique the interest of readers outside of the small population of enthusiastic fans of the topic." Touhou may be "an extremely popular doujin game series" as you say, New questions, but that is only among those who even know it exists, which would not be that many people outside of the otaku culture. And then of course there is precedent for such in-universe articles being deleted before. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of InuYasha locations is one I recall in recent years.--十八 01:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- For your first paragraph, I simply note that I brought up the category not as a simple argument that "other stuff exists," but as a comparative to say that it is at least as notable as those other things.
- I would like to note that your second paragraph is not an argument for deletion of the article, but merely concerns about how the quality of the article will possibly develop in the future.
- As for your third paragraph, yes, not many people in the West know that it exists, but even so, those who know that it exists are more than a few in Japan, and I do not know why you would want to stipulate that it is limited to otaku; it is certainly more well-known than at least some of the series that have pages under Category:Fictional universes. I think that the sources that I have pointed out above, among which I added some to the article, demonstrates its that it is well-known at least to that extent, especially when it gets its own category on Nico Nico Douga. This, combined with the fact that the setting of Gensokyo is one of the most important concepts to Touhou Project, demonstrates its notability.--New questions? 02:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep as nominator (see my reasons above for why).--New questions? 02:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)- Delete A complete lack of English language sources should be enough to raise notability concerns. This is not the place for fancruft and we probably have far too much of it already. For entities within fictional universes there has to be a strong case made for them to receive consideration separate from their parent articles. I don't see any assertion of such notability being made so it should go. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not presenting content of a subject due to its lack of knowledge to English speakers is classic example of systemic bias.--Oakshade (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- A topic of genuine widespread significance would have English language sources for it. Systemic bias only goes so far. Remember there are two things to be considered here, namely 1) is the subject notable? and 2) is the subject notable enough for it to have its own independent article. You are asserting both of these are true but can't cite any of hundreds of millions of native English speakers who have made reliable sources to show that. All you cite are Japanese sources for a Japanese game. Where is the wider notability? Demanding that is not systemic bias, it is applying our normal standards of rigour. What would be systemic bias would be to grant a bye on our normal thresholds of notability and verifiability simply because sources to prove those standards are met are not available. IT doesn't work like that. Crispmuncher (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are more than a few games that are very significant in Japan but are virtually unknown in the West. It shouldn't be very surprising.--New questions? 07:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- A topic of genuine widespread significance would have English language sources for it. Systemic bias only goes so far. Remember there are two things to be considered here, namely 1) is the subject notable? and 2) is the subject notable enough for it to have its own independent article. You are asserting both of these are true but can't cite any of hundreds of millions of native English speakers who have made reliable sources to show that. All you cite are Japanese sources for a Japanese game. Where is the wider notability? Demanding that is not systemic bias, it is applying our normal standards of rigour. What would be systemic bias would be to grant a bye on our normal thresholds of notability and verifiability simply because sources to prove those standards are met are not available. IT doesn't work like that. Crispmuncher (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not presenting content of a subject due to its lack of knowledge to English speakers is classic example of systemic bias.--Oakshade (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Merge or Redirect back to Touhou Project. Notability is established by the subject's real world impact. I am not aware of any impact it has when treated separately from Touhou. (Not like the yukkuri, where they have outgrown Touhou and can probably stand on its own...not that I am suggesting anything.) _dk (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Response to Deadkid dk: I would consider all derivative works to be "real world impact" independent of Touhou Project itself. Each individual derivative work does not make the setting notable, but the amount as a collective does, I would say. Several derivative works have at least some notability, as they have been covered in the news: [15] [16] [17] [18] etc. I would also like to point out that aspects of Gensokyo have been covered in reliable secondary sources: [19] [20] [21] etc. There are probably more out there than just this.--New questions? 03:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect that not being in Japan or having much familiarity with Japanese society has something to do with the lack of knowledge of how extensively it has been covered in the mainstream media. Moreover, as this is a major aspect of a series of 20 games and at least 10 print works that are widely well-known, and not a minor aspect like how locations are not so important to InuYasha, I think of this as a valid content split from the main Touhou Project article, just like the "list of characters page," especially since merging it would create a mess on the main page.--New questions? 04:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- In any case, despite finding relevant results in the news, I would still say that the most important and immediate aspect, the world-setting, of one of the most prominent games in existence known for its derivative works, is itself what makes it notable enough. We don't need studies from universities (although there does exist at least one) or extensive independent books about it (although I have been able to find one to Google Books search), when the derivative works themselves collectively make this notable.--New questions? 05:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The more I look, the more notable third-party sources I find treating the subject of Gensokyo and things within it, like these: [22] [23] [24] [25]. It should be emphasized that these secondary sources do not merely talk about Touhou Project, but also point out several of the details related to the fictional world of Gensokyo. As I find more and more third party sources, the more it seems like saying "no real world impact" is merely due to a lack of trying to find real world impact, not that it doesn't have any real world impact.--New questions? 06:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Link 9 is not referring to a Touhou derivative: it's about an online game called Brave Song Online. The 幻想郷 you see in that article is a reference to Alice in Wonderland instead of Touhou's Gensokyo. Link 10 is about the 4th Touhou game, Touhou Gensokyo, which is not a derivative and obviously not independent of Touhou. Link 12 is about the official Touhou series of short stories, Curiousities of Lotus Asia, which also isn't a derivative, etc. Link 13 is about another official Touhou comic, The Inaba of the Moon and the Inaba of the Earth, which...[see above]. The others I don't see them in a context that the main article in Touhou Project cannot cover. You can't just run the Japanese phrase "幻想郷" through a search, claim random things about the results, and complain about people not familiar with Japanese otaku subcultures by supposing that people are not going to or cannot read the links you posted. _dk (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Link 15 is a review piece about the official comic Wild and Horned Hermit, albeit it does come with a summary of what Gensokyo is. Link 16 is a game review of the 6th game, link 17 is a list of recommended online videos for beginners to the Touhou world, link 18 is a book review for another official comice Oriental Sacred Place. _dk (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Link 9 removed due to mistake and misindentification (note that all counts in your post shall have to be subtracted by 1). In any case, you should know that links 14-17 that are reviews for official works do talk about aspects of Gensokyo, which makes it a third-party source. For example, the one that you called a "list of recommended online videos" contains detailed information about things related to Gensokyo. Furthermore, the one that you called a "book review for another official comic" also contains very detailed information regarding Gensokyo. Furthermore, a book review like this is essentially an example of real-world notability―pretty much all reviews that cover anything related to Touhou works inevitably talk about things within Gensokyo.--New questions? 06:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure if you have been reading my comments carefully, but with regards to links 11-13 (referred to as links 12-14 in your comment), I was saying that they covered aspects about Gensokyo, not that they were about derivative works. For example, the news article about Curiosities of Lotus Asia contained information about Kourindou, saying that it was close to the Forest of Magic.--New questions? 07:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also, examining the comment, "Link 10 is about the 4th Touhou game, Touhou Gensokyo," it makes me wonder if you read the article all the way, since that is not it. It is about the Bad Apple PV, a derivative work.--New questions? 07:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Bad Apple PV getting covered by CNN speaks more about Touhou's popularity and its propensity to generate derivative material than anything about the setting of Touhou, Gensokyo. _dk (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- However, for it to be popular and have a propensity to generate derivative material is an indication of the notability of the world that all the derivative material is about.--New questions? 07:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- New questions, I would like to point out Wikipedia:Subjective importance, specifically, WP:POPULARITY. Anything can become popular. I could make a video of my relative's lame jokes and get millions of hits on YouTube, but unless that video gains enough reliable coverage, then it cannot have a Wikipedia article. Look at YouTube Poops. They are quite popular, but despite that there is no mention of them on the Zelda CD-i games or the Hotel Mario articles, because consensus has determined that they are not notable due to a lack of reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The difference, however, is that there are reliable sources on the derivative works, as I have pointed out in the previous links.--New questions? 16:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- As pointed out above, not all of them are actually about Gensokyo, but about Touhou Project. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- The difference, however, is that there are reliable sources on the derivative works, as I have pointed out in the previous links.--New questions? 16:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- New questions, I would like to point out Wikipedia:Subjective importance, specifically, WP:POPULARITY. Anything can become popular. I could make a video of my relative's lame jokes and get millions of hits on YouTube, but unless that video gains enough reliable coverage, then it cannot have a Wikipedia article. Look at YouTube Poops. They are quite popular, but despite that there is no mention of them on the Zelda CD-i games or the Hotel Mario articles, because consensus has determined that they are not notable due to a lack of reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- However, for it to be popular and have a propensity to generate derivative material is an indication of the notability of the world that all the derivative material is about.--New questions? 07:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Bad Apple PV getting covered by CNN speaks more about Touhou's popularity and its propensity to generate derivative material than anything about the setting of Touhou, Gensokyo. _dk (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Link 9, admittedly, was added by mistake since it had a name very similar to what would seem to be a derivative work. Regardless, I think that you misinterpreted part of my comment because only the first set of (now three, formerly four) links were about derivative works―the rest was about how it was talked about in reliable sources. In any case, I do not think it is a fair accusation to say that I am making stuff up about the sources I am pointing towards.
- In any case, pointing towards the derivative works was a means to show that they are significant, and thus are a significant form of third-party treatment of the subject.--New questions? 07:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, or possibly a merge After searching for quite a while, I was not able to find any reliable or significant English coverage for this. As for Japanese sources, I found some but there wasn't enough reliable coverage as well. As an alternative to deletion as pointed above by Deadkid dk, a merge to the main Touhou Project article can also be done, possible under a "In popular culture", "Cultural impact" or "Legacy" section provided that sources be found. But a separate article? No. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- That makes me wonder if you are ignoring the Japanese news sources I linked to. In any case, I guess that for now, I guess that it should not be a problem to merge to the main article, provided that nothing is deleted from it, since it is a major part of Touhou Project.--New questions? 14:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Since the merge is done, I consider this to be a non-admin closure.--New questions? 15:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)- Note, however, that I do foresee a time when the contents might yet again be split into its on article. As stated previously, per WP:NNC, non-notable content can be included in an article about a notable topic, and per WP:SIZE, WP:SS, WP:UNDUE and the like, it is often appropriate to break out content when it would imbalance an article, and sometimes it is necessary to split an article arbitrarily when it gets too large. It is the same reason why we have lists of characters who are individually non-notable because they are collectively important to its subject, the same reason why there is the page List of Touhou Project characters. It could be argued that the current content is not big enough to warrant a split-out in this spirit, but I do foresee it in the future.--New questions? 15:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- One more comment: I would like to note that perhaps the title not being "plot and world of Touhou Project" has something to do with the perception that its notability is not the same as the notability of "Touhou Project" itself, but they are essentially the same subject, which is why I would say they have the same notability, which is not the same thing as saying that it inherits notability―the reasons for splitting it off would be due to WP:SIZE, WP:SS, WP:UNDUE and the like.--New questions? 16:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- For one thing, I do not see how this is any less notable than the page List of Touhou Project characters. Should we delete that page as well?--New questions? 16:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, despite being merged, I am still thinking that it would be appropriate to split it off again. Therefore, I would still like to see further discussion as for whether or not the individual article is appropriate.--New questions? 16:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I undid the merge mainly because it was poorly done. You can't just copy/paste the content from one article into another and declare it "merged". WP:UNDUE also says you shouldn't put too much weight of one aspect (especially an in-universe aspect like the setting) in an article that's about the entire series. Furthermore, length does not mean notability. No matter how much you may write for Gensokyo, that won't make it any more notable unless you prove notability by satisfying the GNG. Like I suggested before, if you want all this content available in English, post it at the Touhou Wiki, which is freely available as an external link in the main article. It does not necessarily have to go on Wikipedia. Oh and another all-plot article (which is what Gensokyo would amount to) recently got deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fate/stay night scenarios (2nd nomination)--十八 21:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Per WP:UNDUE, it would be of undue weight not to include in-universe information about it in relation to Touhou Project. It is essentially a large part of Touhou Project.--New questions? 22:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- As stated previously, GNG does not govern what goes in articles―rather, things like UNDUE does.
- As of yet, you are merely pointing towards "other stuff got deleted." That is not strong argument for why it should not be included.--New questions? 22:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- To think of having a lot of information regarding the plot as "undue weight" is a serious misconception of Touhou Project, since Touhou Project is entirely about its world, its species, locations, etc. To put so much weight into explaining the games is exactly what WP:UNDUE is. The plot, after all, is one of the most important aspect of the series, and not having it gives undue weight to everything else.--New questions? 22:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I am not sure if you have ignored the links on this page and the references on the Gensokyo article or not, but some of those news articles have clearly directly stated things about Gensokyo that are more than a trivial mention. Moreover, I think I have already provided reliable sources demonstrating that Touhou Project is well-known enough to have extended information about aspects of its world.--New questions? 22:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The difference here is that plot info has no real-world significance, or in other words, no significance outside of the work itself. That's why it would be undue weight to put a huge amount of plot info in the main article. On the other hand, the rest of the article contains material that actually has real-world significance, in terms of the gameplay, the games themselves, derivative works, and reception and influence.
- And I see I have to repeat myself. If Gensokyo (as a topic) cannot satisfy GNG, it should not get an article; I do not believe it has, thus I think it should be deleted. Again, notability is not inherited, so even if you "provide reliable sources demonstrating that Touhou Project is well-known enough", that does not extend to the setting. The setting is more or less discussed in passing in the sources in order to give context to something greater, such as a derivative work. And I provided instances of precedent in AFDs in order to show you that similar cases have come before and have been deleted before for the reasons I and others have given. I'm not saying "oh, these got deleted so this should too" per se; I'm just showing previous examples. I'll also point out that even if this survives an AFD, it's bound to get nominated again eventually, even more so if you filled up the article with what's in the Japanese article.
- What is so bad about putting this info on the Touhou Wiki? There seems to be enough opposition here for its inclusion, as you are the only interested editor who is arguing for a separate Gensokyo article, so why not just post it there?--十八 22:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, considering how Nations of Nineteen Eighty-Four has no secondary sources, I would like for you to evaluate that page. Again, notability may not be inherited, but again, having break-out pages can be legitimate as per WP:SPINOUT. "Significance outside of the work itself" is not a necessary requirement for having it written within the article―I am not sure where you are getting this idea. Things should be included as they are important to their subject. I am not exactly sure if even half of the content in Magical objects in Harry Potter has any "real life significance." Are you suggesting that most of the stuff under Category:Fantasy worlds do not satisfy the notability guidelines and therefore and AfD should be tried over some of them?--New questions? 23:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has no bearing on this article, so please do not try to side track this discussion. Furthermore, WP:SPINOUT merely talks about how to properly split an article if the content is too long. I feel like a broken record here, but every article must establish notability by itself regardless of length, content, or "importance".
- I've been on Wikipedia long enough to see that "significance outside of the work itself" is one of the defining principals in works about fiction. Wikipedia not not a plot summary, so real-world significance must be established no matter what. Just read the essay Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works: A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance. Plot and real-world content should be balanced, yes, but too much plot summary will always be discouraged compared to too much real-world content as plot, as previously stated, has no significance outside of the work itself. Most of the plot about Touhou on Wikipedia is in the separate game articles, or the character list, and there's no indication that this should change with the addition of an all-plot summary setting article.--十八 23:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am only trying to point out precedent the same way you are pointing out precedent for deleted pages. The reason why the plot would not fit in separate game articles is because a great amount of the content comes from things that are not games (i. e. the written works), that would therefore encompass all of Touhou Project. I also disagree with the notion that "real-world significance must be established no matter what," since then we would not have such pages as Minor places in Middle-earth.--New questions? 23:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) The reason why I am arguing this is because I believe you have a misconception that the world and plot of Touhou Project is not as notable as others that we have a page on already. Notability itself is vague, so it is true in a sense that arguments based on precedent is not wholly invalid, even if not the end of it all; yet, I think you are making unfair comparisons to the ones that you have pointed out have been deleted since those were not major concepts to the works that they are about. For example, "locations" are not important to InuYasha and "chapters" are not important to Fate/stay night. However, Gensokyo is immensely important to Touhou Project. I believe a more fair comparison is something like Wheel of Time locations or Narnia (world).--New questions? 23:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I believe that any plot summary article that does not show real-world significance should be deleted, as notability is not inherited. Who cares that The Lord of the Rings is one of the most recognized books in the world? Minor places in Middle-earth has no real-world significance outside of the work itself, so it shouldn't have a separate article. The Chronicles of Narnia may be hugely popular and well-known, but Narnia (world) and List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia are not significant outside of the work itself. These articles exist because people created them in the past. That doesn't mean they should have been created, or were notable enough for separate articles. The same principal applies to Touhou and Gensokyo.
- And I do not believe the examples I gave were "unfair". If locations were not important in InuYasha, why are they so important in Touhou? If plot summary scenarios in Fate/stay night were not important, why are the "incidents" in Gensokyo#Incidents so important? Please, enlighten me.--十八 23:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Are you saying that such articles should be nominated for deletion, then? I believe such a discussion occurred before: please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minor_places_in_Middle-earth. Also, there are more than a few locations in Touhou, like Koumakan, Eientei, etc. which is a large part of what Touhou is about, unlike in InuYasha where there are only a few recurring locations. Having it all in one page is a reasonable way to include this important information while not including too much. Incidents are the main plot subject of what Touhou Project is about, so of course they are important to Touhou Project. I said before, being the subject of more derivative works than most other things in existence is, I would say, something that makes it notable.--New questions? 23:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- A lot has happened on Wikipedia in the past 4 years; I am not so sure that article would survive another AFD. As for your InuYasha vs Touhou comparison, that is merely your opinion. I guarantee anyone as into InuYasha as you seem to be into Touhou would be able to argue with just as much enthusiasm why the setting and locations of InuYasha are important. Similarly, the scenarios of Fate/stay night were the "main plot subject" (your words) of the work in question, and yet it got deleted. Anyway, I'm done with this discussion as I'm merely repeating myself ad infinitum. You have yet to establish clear notability of the topic as stipulated at WP:GNG. "Being the subject of more derivative works than most other things in existence" (which, IMO is a huge overstatement) does not establish notability.--十八 00:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that it be re-nominated for deletion, then?--New questions? 00:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also, I would like to point out that Touhou Project does not truly have a story; "incidents" are pretty much the only things that occur that the series focuses on, which is why it is more important than in Fate/stay night.--New questions? 00:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I know it's very outdated and no longer widely used, but do we have to resort to the Pokémon test again? Besides, Just because we have X doesn't mean we should have Y. If you believe that those other articles are not notable, you can always boldly nominate them for deletion yourself, as long as you don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- If those other things truly also shouldn't exist, then I guess I shall also try nominating some of those which I don't find secondary sources for, then.--New questions? 06:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- However, I still do not see this page as being any different from List of Touhou Project characters―are you supposing that this page also should not exist due to not having "real-world notability"? Things like Koumakan, Eientei, etc. are things that deserve mention with relation to Touhou Project, and since they don't deserve articles by themselves, having a "merged article" like this is only a sensible means of having it. But, if this page does not belong, then, I guess I shall see what others shall think of the other pages that seem less notable than this one (noting, of course, that such nominations are not to "prove a point," but due to an honest attempt to follow the reasoning from this AfD).--New questions? 06:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with Gensokyo is that the article fails to demonstrate its real-world notability. Even the World of Naruto article, which is quite problematic, at least has a "Creation and conception" section, and has several reliable sources. If you really want to save this article, rewrite it from a real-world perspective per our guidelines on writing about fiction. As for the things above, unless you can somehow prove their real-world notability, then the article should not exist. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Question Would you say that List of Touhou Project characters also fails to demonstrate its "real-world notability"? Not that I am disagreeing with your reasoning or anything―it is just that I would like to note that this page does not have any section dealing with its relevance to real-life either, so it would seem like the same would apply to that as well.--New questions? 06:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- List of characters are generally an exception (to my knowledge). They are usually forked off if the original article gets too long. Even then, such articles should be written from a real-world perspective and should be handled with care to avoid excessive fancruft. From the looks of it, the Gensokyo article is written in such a way that it is just doomed to be filled with fancruft, something which is discouraged here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- If it is an exception, there should be a reason to it, not simply because "they are an exception."--New questions? 07:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- List of characters are generally an exception (to my knowledge). They are usually forked off if the original article gets too long. Even then, such articles should be written from a real-world perspective and should be handled with care to avoid excessive fancruft. From the looks of it, the Gensokyo article is written in such a way that it is just doomed to be filled with fancruft, something which is discouraged here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I know it's very outdated and no longer widely used, but do we have to resort to the Pokémon test again? Besides, Just because we have X doesn't mean we should have Y. If you believe that those other articles are not notable, you can always boldly nominate them for deletion yourself, as long as you don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- A lot has happened on Wikipedia in the past 4 years; I am not so sure that article would survive another AFD. As for your InuYasha vs Touhou comparison, that is merely your opinion. I guarantee anyone as into InuYasha as you seem to be into Touhou would be able to argue with just as much enthusiasm why the setting and locations of InuYasha are important. Similarly, the scenarios of Fate/stay night were the "main plot subject" (your words) of the work in question, and yet it got deleted. Anyway, I'm done with this discussion as I'm merely repeating myself ad infinitum. You have yet to establish clear notability of the topic as stipulated at WP:GNG. "Being the subject of more derivative works than most other things in existence" (which, IMO is a huge overstatement) does not establish notability.--十八 00:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Are you saying that such articles should be nominated for deletion, then? I believe such a discussion occurred before: please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minor_places_in_Middle-earth. Also, there are more than a few locations in Touhou, like Koumakan, Eientei, etc. which is a large part of what Touhou is about, unlike in InuYasha where there are only a few recurring locations. Having it all in one page is a reasonable way to include this important information while not including too much. Incidents are the main plot subject of what Touhou Project is about, so of course they are important to Touhou Project. I said before, being the subject of more derivative works than most other things in existence is, I would say, something that makes it notable.--New questions? 23:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, considering how Nations of Nineteen Eighty-Four has no secondary sources, I would like for you to evaluate that page. Again, notability may not be inherited, but again, having break-out pages can be legitimate as per WP:SPINOUT. "Significance outside of the work itself" is not a necessary requirement for having it written within the article―I am not sure where you are getting this idea. Things should be included as they are important to their subject. I am not exactly sure if even half of the content in Magical objects in Harry Potter has any "real life significance." Are you suggesting that most of the stuff under Category:Fantasy worlds do not satisfy the notability guidelines and therefore and AfD should be tried over some of them?--New questions? 23:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I undid the merge mainly because it was poorly done. You can't just copy/paste the content from one article into another and declare it "merged". WP:UNDUE also says you shouldn't put too much weight of one aspect (especially an in-universe aspect like the setting) in an article that's about the entire series. Furthermore, length does not mean notability. No matter how much you may write for Gensokyo, that won't make it any more notable unless you prove notability by satisfying the GNG. Like I suggested before, if you want all this content available in English, post it at the Touhou Wiki, which is freely available as an external link in the main article. It does not necessarily have to go on Wikipedia. Oh and another all-plot article (which is what Gensokyo would amount to) recently got deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fate/stay night scenarios (2nd nomination)--十八 21:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't I already mention why "List of X characters" articles are made? If the character section on the article gets too long, then they are forked of. However, in such articles, only characters who played a large part in the story are listed, extremely minor or one-time characters usually are not. Such articles are also quite prone to content problems such as original research (for example, our article on CLANNAD is a good article, but its characters article has a multiple issues template on top). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- It seems odd that this kind of reasoning applies only to characters; in any case, it is not true that "extremely minor characters are not" since there are lists dedicated to minor characters, examples being List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters.
- In any case, I have added some real-life perspective from a reliable source (an interview), and expanded content sourced from one of the news articles to state the reason for its notability (being the setting for an unusually large number of derivative works). There are still more notable sources, like interviews from the notable Chara Mel magazine, but that would require expanding the article to have more detailed information about Gensokyo, which it does not have yet. I wonder if you consider this enough to establish its "real-world notability" at least as much as World of Naruto.--New questions? 07:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Outdent 1
[edit] I wasn't going to do this, but there are some things I should point out regarding character lists (as this was not brought up before). Character lists get a pass because they are generally seen as articles with the potential for improvement, however long that may take. Very minor characters are generally not notable enough for inclusion in lists, and while such articles as List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters may exist, that does not mean they should. Setting articles are a lot more geared towards in-universe content by definition compared to character lists, which (at least the more well-written articles such as FLs) would have creation/conception, and reception of the characters. The character bios themselves would also be written from a real-world perspective with minimal plot summary; check out some character FLs at WP:FL like List of Naruto characters. Even if you did (and have) creation/conception, I don't see why that couldn't go in the main article, especially seeing as it's pretty short as of now. I would also like to echo Narutolovehinata5 and suggest you don't nominate any other articles for AFD anytime soon in lieu of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point about notable topics.--十八 08:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- My other nomination that I initiated was not an attempt at disruption, but was a serious nomination within what I thought to be reason and judicious; rather, I was following the suggestion Narutolovehinata5 made to me that perhaps those other things truly do not belong, which is quite reasonable in light of the discussion here.--New questions? 09:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- A minor note: I would also like to note that length by itself is not the final indicator.--New questions? 09:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, you would not have nominated List of locations in Atlas Shrugged for AFD had we not had this discussion, and some could easily suggest you are trying to prove a point. I'd say there's a good chance that article will be deleted, though.--十八 10:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Disruption is what WP:POINT is about, though; this is a cautious and honest attempts at following others' recommendations.--New questions? 10:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not everyone will see it that way, is all I'm saying. You can say whatever you want, but actions speak louder than words.--十八 10:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would also like to point out something. Look at our articles on Ayu Tsukimiya, Naruto Uzumaki, Belldandy and Pikachu. They are all Good articles despite being about characters. Why? Because in-universe stuff (specifically, plot summaries and non-essential facts) are kept to a minimum, and they have good out-of-universe information (such as Creation and conception, Characteristics, Reception etc.). Contrast our articles on Kyon and Mikuru Asahina. Both are in pretty bad shape right now since they are nothing more than plot summary - they don't even have a Development and Reception article. See, the best way to write about fiction is to write them from a real-world perspective, and not as if it was actually real. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like there is plenty of stuff that would fail that criterion, if you are going by that―most of the pages in that category are only a little about the real-life perspective, and the mostly about the in-universe perspective. What is your evaluation of those pages?--New questions? 10:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, just because we have an article on X doesn't mean we should have an article on Y. For example, the Harry Potter universe. They have articles because reliable sources have proven their notability, and because they get a lot of coverage, even from those who aren't fans of Harry Potter. Since notability is not inherited, can you please explain exactly why Gensokyo is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia? What makes you think that it needs to have its own section instead of being in the Touhou Project article? Also, you said above that there are sources about it, but the sources are not about Gensokyo itself but the videos it had spawned on Nico Nico Douga. IMHO, instead of a separate article, mentioning of the videos could instead be incuded in the Touhou Project article as long as more sources are found. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would, however, suppose that the Meiji University talkshow "Dawn of Touhou" and the Chara Mel interviews are at least as reliable as the ones given for the Harry Potter articles. As noted earlier, this news article has the information about the Great Hakurei Barrier], and this news article has pretty much all the information regarding how it has been separated from the outside world. I would consider that "non-trivial coverage."--New questions? 11:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Those sources may discuss aspects of Gensokyo, but only from an in-universe perspective. There's nothing about how Gensokyo impacts the real world, which is what you would need to establish notability. If there was a Touhou theme park modeled off of Gensokyo, or if someone built a 1/1 scale model of the Hakurei Shrine, or renames a forest "The Forest of Magic" after the one in Gensokyo, then I'd say Gensokyo should get it's own article. But until that happens, you'd be hard pressed to establish its notability for a separate article.--十八 11:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia contains a lot of fancruft, that much we know, and there's always going to be more. Do we really need a List of spells in Harry Potter? I doubt it, especially when a similar list already exists at the Harry Potter wiki. The point is, other stuff will always exist, and there's not much you can really do about it save for a massive AFD nomination drive, which would cause a large-scale disruption (and would be liable to be taken to WP:AN/I). So, I implore you, do not take any more articles to AFD as you have now done with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in the Firebird series. Sometimes (often times, actually) an AFD is not even required, and a simple merge can be performed without having to clog WP:AFD with new, unnecessary nominations. Hell, a simple prod could have probably been used for List of places in the Firebird series.
If you continue, I'll have to take it up at AN/I.--十八 10:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, a massive AfD nomination would be too much to handle; slow, individual nominations are the best way to process this, which is the best way to go. I ask, please at least assume good faith in that I do not mean any disruption with my AfD requests; I am merely nominating what I actually think are actually reasonable candidates for deletion. I do not see why there should be any problem with making AfD requests that are perfectly reasonable.--New questions? 10:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- The point I'm trying to make is that, even if done in good faith, actions can be disruptive. AFD is really for articles that require discussions on if they should be deleted or not. Easy candidates that would clearly not survive an AFD could be merged/redirected or simply proded. Not every article that you feel needs to be deleted needs to be taken to AFD. Doing so unnecessarily clogs the AFD process and may take focus off of discussions that need further input.--十八 11:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, at the time, I was unsure, which is why I decided to go the more cautious step of doing AfD first.--New questions? 11:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- In any case, I was actually unaware of prod so please excuse my ignorance of that.--New questions? 11:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, then just try to keep any AFDs to those liable to require discussions. Any high profile articles, such as any of the Harry Potter ones, would carry with them many interested parties in an AFD. Not that I'm suggesting you do that.--十八 11:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- (Also a reply to comment made above, to avoid splitting conversation) It should be noted that most of the sources deemed "reliable sources" for Harry Potter are actually unofficial guidebooks to Harry Potter, which I do not consider any more "reliable" than any of the notable derivative works for Touhou Project. In any case, it might not be good do any more AfD nominations for now, since I have already made two AfD nominations, but since you yourself expressed concerns about the notability of other things, I do think it would at least be appropriate to nominate some things for AfD in the future. When I do make such nominations, I would appreciate it if good faith was assumed that they are based on legitimate concerns that have expressed here.--New questions? 17:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- IIRC, such guidebooks are secondary sources, which can be which can be used, and should be used as long as they are used for a real-world perspective on the subject. Besides, who would imagine us not having an article on Springfield? However, that article does have reliable sources about Springfield from a real-world perspective, and it is written from a real-world perspective, something which you have failed to do with Gensokyo. If you do not think that the Harry Potter universe articles have reliable sources or are fancrufty, you can always find reliable sources yourself and boldly fixing them to be in a real-world perspective. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- When you said "you have failed to do with Gensokyo," this makes me wonder if you are ignoring my recent changes to the page to at least provide some real-world perspective to it, since I already did that. That Springfield page only has one section from a real-world perspective, namely, "creation," which is about as comparable to what is on the Gensokyo page right now, at least relative to their total lengths.--New questions? 04:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- In any case, there are several secondary sources like that, like this or this for example, which, although I have not been able to obtain it myself, certain shows that there do exist secondary sources that give it more than a trivial mention, just like those Harry Potter guidebooks. Such sources are not worked into the article as of yet, but even without that, I think that I have still added sufficient real-life perspective and secondary sources to match up to what is on the Springfield page.--New questions? 05:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Additional note: I would consider the well-known derivative work 夢想夏郷 to be a non-trivial secondary source on this, since it contained many detailed depictions of the Scarlet Devil Mansion, etc.--New questions? 05:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ummm, you do realize that Springfield is written from a real-world perspective? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- A very small portion of it is written from a real-world perspective. The "creation" section is, and the "The Town" section has one sentence mentioning how it was designated in magazines; the rest is from an in-universe perspective. Do you see any other portion of the Springfield page that is from a real-world perspective? If so, please point it out.--New questions? 17:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Disruption is what WP:POINT is about, though; this is a cautious and honest attempts at following others' recommendations.--New questions? 10:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, you would not have nominated List of locations in Atlas Shrugged for AFD had we not had this discussion, and some could easily suggest you are trying to prove a point. I'd say there's a good chance that article will be deleted, though.--十八 10:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Merge to Touhou Project - Plot - Setting, the characters article and other ones mentioned falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF as it is diffrent cases involved. I would not delete this article as there is a place the merged content can go, a redirect is always possible but why waste the referenced content when you can merge it? The material that is referenced should be merged as it does not have enough real world notability for it's own article at the moment per WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Injecting a huge amount of fancruft into the main article is not going to be constructive. I believe the previous "attempt" at a merge has shown this (and that was only the first part of a very large Japanese article which New questions is in the process of translating). Just because information may be attributed does not mean it's needed to understand the work as a whole. Aside from a passing mention of the Scarlet Devil Mansion in the character bios of the characters from EoSD, why would any excessive detail of the mansion significantly aid in the understanding of the characters or plot? It's the same reason why we attribute fair use images, so they serve a purpose in the context of the article, as outlined at WP:NFCC point 8. I realize the policy is about images, but anything that's attributed in prose is more or less fair use, because it requires a source, or else it'd be original research.--十八 00:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Calling things "fancruft" is unconvincing, especially since Wikipedia:Fancruft is an essay, and the word "fancruft" could be found insulting. To call it "cruft" is also in disregard to WP:NNC. The Scarlet Devil Mansion is something people might reasonably search for and is notable within Touhou Project, and it would be unreasonable not to have information about it somewhere. Do you not realize that it is actually the setting for the majority of that game, had clear mentions in Perfect Memento in Strict Sense, Bohemian Archive in Japanese Red, played a significant role in Silent Sinner in Blue and Cage in Lunatic Runagate, was clearly mentioned various interviews, Changeability of Strange Dream, and lots of derivative works (like the 夢想夏郷 I mentioned earlier)? The locations of Touhou Project are just as important as the characters.--New questions? 04:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- But does the SDM need to be described in excessive detail to understand the plot? How about the Hakurei Shrine? Or the Forest of Magic where Alice and Marisa live? The underground setting of Subterranean Animism? Or the Yōkai Mountain of Mountain of Faith? All of these things are just various aspects of the plot, which is already succinctly described in the various game articles. Wikipedia is not a plot summary, and people shouldn't expect to look for excessive plot details in Wikipedia articles because of that. This is why we have MOS guidelines on plot summaries and two essays on the subject. Over the years, Wikipedia has been shying away from over excessive plot details, and putting too much focus on the plot of any one series would be against that movement.--十八 06:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- It does not need to be described in "excessive detail," but it and all those other places do need to be described in some detail, given how the places are just as important as the characters in relation to the series. Although it is not a plot summary, important elements of the series, like a quick description of the important places, should be included, just like characters.--New questions? 07:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Hakurei Shrine has more than 5 lengthy paragraphs on the Japanese wiki, and as far as I can tell, it's your intention to translate the whole article over to English. That's not excessive? Most of the other sections may be smaller than that (though the one on the Moon is pretty long), but are still high in intricate detail that only the most savy of fans would know or even care about.--十八 09:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- It does not need to be described in "excessive detail," but it and all those other places do need to be described in some detail, given how the places are just as important as the characters in relation to the series. Although it is not a plot summary, important elements of the series, like a quick description of the important places, should be included, just like characters.--New questions? 07:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- But does the SDM need to be described in excessive detail to understand the plot? How about the Hakurei Shrine? Or the Forest of Magic where Alice and Marisa live? The underground setting of Subterranean Animism? Or the Yōkai Mountain of Mountain of Faith? All of these things are just various aspects of the plot, which is already succinctly described in the various game articles. Wikipedia is not a plot summary, and people shouldn't expect to look for excessive plot details in Wikipedia articles because of that. This is why we have MOS guidelines on plot summaries and two essays on the subject. Over the years, Wikipedia has been shying away from over excessive plot details, and putting too much focus on the plot of any one series would be against that movement.--十八 06:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Calling things "fancruft" is unconvincing, especially since Wikipedia:Fancruft is an essay, and the word "fancruft" could be found insulting. To call it "cruft" is also in disregard to WP:NNC. The Scarlet Devil Mansion is something people might reasonably search for and is notable within Touhou Project, and it would be unreasonable not to have information about it somewhere. Do you not realize that it is actually the setting for the majority of that game, had clear mentions in Perfect Memento in Strict Sense, Bohemian Archive in Japanese Red, played a significant role in Silent Sinner in Blue and Cage in Lunatic Runagate, was clearly mentioned various interviews, Changeability of Strange Dream, and lots of derivative works (like the 夢想夏郷 I mentioned earlier)? The locations of Touhou Project are just as important as the characters.--New questions? 04:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Injecting a huge amount of fancruft into the main article is not going to be constructive. I believe the previous "attempt" at a merge has shown this (and that was only the first part of a very large Japanese article which New questions is in the process of translating). Just because information may be attributed does not mean it's needed to understand the work as a whole. Aside from a passing mention of the Scarlet Devil Mansion in the character bios of the characters from EoSD, why would any excessive detail of the mansion significantly aid in the understanding of the characters or plot? It's the same reason why we attribute fair use images, so they serve a purpose in the context of the article, as outlined at WP:NFCC point 8. I realize the policy is about images, but anything that's attributed in prose is more or less fair use, because it requires a source, or else it'd be original research.--十八 00:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Correction: The Hakurei shrine actually has two paragraphs on it, and the rest is about related, but also important topics. That page is long because there are many important locations, just like how there are many characters. It is not "high in intricate detail"; it is all pretty much mostly a short description describing how it is important to the series as a whole. It only includes basic information, not detailed information.--New questions? 18:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Furthermore, regardless of whatever length you think is appropriate for it, it would be be a violating of WP:UNDUE not to have any information related to the Hakurei Shrine or any of the other locations with relation to this, given how it is important to a series. You may think that a smaller length may be appropriate, but even if a smaller length might be appropriate, it is at least certainly false to say that it should have no information on it, given how all of the locations are a major part of the series.--New questions? 18:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- In other words, fancruft. It may only be an essay, but it pretty much sums up the problem with the article - it will inherently only be of interest to fans of the series. If it actually had some real-world significance then it could have an article, but it does not. Anyway, as stated by Juhachi, the content could just be sent to the Touhou Wiki, where it should belong. That way, Wikipedia can actually have useful information about Touhou Project, such us its real-life impact, and excess plot summary and fancruft can be kept to a minimum. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- To that, I counter Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft and Wikipedia:What Isn't Grounds for Article Deletion. It is not "inherently of interest to fans of the series"―the locations are of importance to anyone who even encounters Touhou Project, just as important as the characters. As I pointed out to you several times earlier, I have already pointed out the secondary sources giving non-trivial mentions on the setting, and the interviews that also treated it in-depth either. I also pointed out that a "real-world perspective" was recently added. I do not know why you keep on ignoring it, but please at least answer this before saying that "it does not have real-world significance" again.--New questions? 18:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- To which I would refer you to those very articles. The issue regarding those articles as they apply here is simply one of terminology, not substance. WP:NOCRUFT explicitly makes the points most other editors have been saying here from the outset: if there is little real-world notability the material should go. We've made the position clear as to what is required in terms of reliable source and independent references to assert your case. We haven't had them. Instead, simply look at the sheer length of this discussion: we've had over 8,000 words of wikilaywering about the most minor side-issues when the elephant in the room - the essential point of demonstrable notability - is being completely ignored. Until that point is addressed you don't have an argument. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC).
- It is very simple: as a very notable game, important aspects of the game, such as characters and setting, should at least be mentioned somewhere. If that is not enough, I have already provided plenty of notable sources on this that provided nontrivial mentions. To quote what I said above: this news article has the information about the Great Hakurei Barrier, and this news article has pretty much all the information regarding how it has been separated from the outside world. There is also this book or this book or this publication that provided more detailed analysis of it. It has also been the subject of interviews, such as the talk show at Meiji University and in the Chara Mel magazine, that also provided non-trivial mentions of the setting. There are also many derivative works like 夢想夏郷, which provided detailed interpretations on the locations. I have already added a "real-world perspective" on it as the "Concept and creation" section of the page as well as the lead section, and added several secondary sources to it already. The only reason why this discussion is so long is because each time I raised those points, the discussion became side-tracked into the "it's cruft" arguments.--New questions? 20:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Notability is not inherited. Besides, as what Juhachi stated the sources do not mention their real-world significance, only their in-universe significance. Even if it was written from a real-world perspective, if the article fails to establish exactly why the subject is notable, then it really wouldn't matter. In the Manual of Style for anime and manga articles, under the Characters section, a "Reception" section is essential since it forms the meat of notability. There, the impact it made in the real-world can be established. Yes it is for characters, but it can also apply to Gensokyo. You should at least mention the impact and legacy it made on the real world. Ayu Tsukimiya's article has a Reception and/or Legacy section. So does Naruto's. And Sasuke's. Even Haruhi Suzumiya's article has a Reception section (although a short one), and her article isn't even a GA! (far from it actually). You can use the above sources as secondary sources, but only after real-world impact is established through other sources. The point is, you have failed to explain the real-world significance of the subject. If you want to save the article, you must prove its notability. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Outdent 2
[edit]- Comment Section break due to length. Please add further comments below. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Strange, I would have thought that having non-trivial mentions in several secondary sources should have already been enough, and I feel as if you are trying to hold this article to higher standards of notability than standards usually dictate, which is a kind of bias. Regardless, since you really feel that it is necessary, I added the "reception and impact" section you desired. What do you say about that section?--New questions? 04:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- The article looks a little better now, but I'm not sure if it will be enough to establish notability. Also, the references and notes need to be translated into English. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Well, since you thought it was so important, I doubled the length of the section. In any case, I do not think that at this point, deleting the article or merging it with Touhou Project would really be the proper way to handle this. What do you say?--New questions? 06:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Here's my take on it. Outside of a few mentions here and there, can we really call this "significant coverage" as given at WP:GNG? Even if we assume it is, the fifth point of that guideline states Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I've said before that much of what this article would constitute would be "an indiscriminate collection of information", and point 1 of WP:INDISCRIMINATE states at the end Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage. I take this to mean more than just trivial (though I use that word lightly, as it can be take subjectively) mentions in reliable sources, and having probably what will amount to a 100+kB article (the Japanese article is already at 123+kB) where the vast majority of the info is in-universe detail does not really seem like due weight to me.
- But there's also the concern regarding WP:NOTDIR point 8: Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details. The Japanese article is extremely detailed when it comes to Gensokyo as a whole, and an article less than half that length would probably serve the topic better than adding anything and everything to the article. As I said before, in-universe content like this is often a hotbed for contributors to add in fancruft, and if the article were not maintained, that's basically what it would largely amount to overtime. I've seen this happen primarily in character list articles, so it'll definitely happen to this article, too. Trivia and original research are also very rampant in such articles, and giving interested editors an avenue to add in stuff like that is not often a good thing.
- WP:GNG also states this in a footnote at the end of the end of the section: Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. I suppose I'd leave it to the consensus of this discussion whether the reliable sources given "constitute evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation" before moving forward.--十八 07:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- You may think that it is extremely detailed, but it is not. There is a whole lot more that could be said, and if it were truly an indiscriminate collection of information, the Japanese page would be at least 5 times longer. The page is long, but that does not mean that it is indiscriminate; merely, that it has many entries, since there are many locations. It is a rough outline of the places, not a complete description of it. There is a whole lot more information in the original works than what is on the Japanese page, and you do not seem to be quite aware of that. That is evidenced by what you said earlier, that there was only a "brief mention of the Scarlet Devil Mansion in the character bios," showing that you are probably unaware of just how in-depth the entire series goes into all of its locations.
- Just because there is a lot more that can be said doesn't mean they should. If more was mentioned, then it would be nothing more than indiscriminate information of trivia and excess plot summary. There should only be the essentials. If there was too much then it would look more like fancruft and less like encyclopedic material. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think that you somewhat misunderstood my comment. I am saying that in the primary sources, there is a lot more information than what is covered here. The Japanese Wikipedia page has only the essentials. Even if you disagree with that, it still has nothing to do with whether the article should exist or not.--New questions? 10:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- As for "significant coverage," one thing that is doubtless is the Hakurei Shrine Reitaisai. Another is the doujin rice, which has been covered in several reliable sources.--New questions? 07:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I also wonder why you are not trying to argue for this at all on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of A Series of Unfortunate Events locations especially since the other page is worse in many ways than this one. Although WP:OTHERSTUFF is not in itself valid grounds for inclusion or exclusion, to have a very large inconsistency is evidence of a certain bias. Do you feel that in-universe articles related to games are somehow less worthy than than in-universe articles related to books or TV shows?--New questions? 08:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Point duly noted. It's not even a matter of speculation anymore. You are clearly trying to prove a point by echoing my, and others', comments on this debate, and are intentionally and knowingly disrupting Wikipedia to do so. I should bring it up at WP:AN/I right now and see what they have to say about this.
- So now I'm biased? Maybe I'm not arguing on those pages because they were nominated to prove a point. Maybe I'm not arguing on those pages because I didn't even know you nominated List of A Series of Unfortunate Events locations for an AFD until you mentioned of it here. Maybe I just don't care. But I am most certainly not biased when it comes to fancrufty, in-universe plot summary which has no merit outside the work itself. I've worked on and built up far too many articles for you to suggest that I feel games are less worthy than something else. But you know what? I'm going to stay cool and assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith.--十八 10:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you are assuming good faith, there is no need to raise anything on AN/I, but if you wish to ahead, there is nothing stopping you, I guess. I nominated that page after an examination of the page itself, and an examination of its history and talk page, not a "blind application" of the reasoning here. I did not "echo your arguments" verbatim; only the ones that I thought were valid, leaving out the parts that I disagreed with (most notably, I did not use the word "cruft," which I disagreed with). I nominated it because I thought there was a valid reason for it (namely, parts of the argument here that I agreed with), not to cause disruption. I am also not saying that you are definitely biased, but that to argue harder for deletion here than elsewhere effectively results in bias whether the effect was intentional or not.--New questions? 10:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would also like to note that WP:OTHERSTUFF itself notes that "if you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." While Wikipedia is not totally consistent, there are certain inconsistencies that represent bias and therefore should not be; the bias, in this case, being a lack of an article for the setting of Touhou Project but the presence of many other articles on subjects less notable than this one. For example, this one right here. Such a bias goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, and that, above everything else, is the reason why I am continuing this discussion.--New questions? 08:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Question I just wonder, what would you say qualifies as "real world notability"? Would you say that having many independent works like this book or this book or this publication providing non-trivial explanations of it, or being the subject of interviews (note the concept section in the article that is referenced to an interview), qualifies it as having real-world notability?--New questions? 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Question: Can you please stop nominating articles for deletion until after this AfD is closed? People might think that you are just nominating the articles to prove a point. I think it would be best for you to refrain from doing such things. Let consensus be determined, and then act based on what has been reached. But please don't nominate articles yet. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why there is any reason to stop nominating articles for deletion if I see a plausible good reason for it; this AfD just pointed out to me that there might be some things that would be good AfD candidates out there.--New questions? 10:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that, some (not all) editors might assume that you were trying to prove a point. As stated above, you would have not nominated the other articles if this discussion was not started. Editors might think that you are trying to prove a point even if you are not. My suggestion is simply, do not nominate any more articles for deletion until this AfD is closed and consensus has been reached, so that people won't think about proving a point. Once consensus has been reached, then maybe you can nominate articles for deletion, but not now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I shall do that if someone outside of this AfD actually complains about it, but I have heard no complaints so far. I shall stop if someone actually does complain.--New questions? 10:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- They might not be aware of just how long this discussion is (it's already the length of a Featured Article) or what it is all about. It's best to prevent than to stop bad things, so for your own good, I suggest that you refrain for the time being. You wouldn't want people to say that you are trying to prove a point, desho? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've brought New questions' behavior up at WP:AN/I#User:New questions.--十八 11:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- One thing I am not so keen of is a restriction of my activities for unfound reasons, and I do not believe that those AfD nominations were problematic in any way, which is why I am not agreeing on this right away. If others express a concern about it on that AN/I thread, then I shall agree on that.--New questions? 18:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to point out this quote from our article on the Japanese Wikipedia:
Jimmy Wales has pointed out on a conference that the Japanese Wikipedia is significantly more dominated by articles about pop culture than other Wikipedia projects, and according to one of his slides, as a New York Times journalist saw it, "barely 20 percent" of the articles on Japanese Wikipedia were about anything else.
— Japanese Wikipedia article
- This may seem a little off-topic, but it appears that the Japanese Wikipedia also has its share of problems when it comes to fiction articles. For example, the articles on dates on Japanese Wikipedia (example: October 3) lists fictional characters. Articles on characters on the Japanese Wikipedia (example: Tenma Tsukamoto) include their birthdays, blood types, heights, weights, three sizes etc. which would be considered trivia here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Japanese Wikipedia may have its share of problems, but I do not see any particular problem with its Gensokyo article. It does not seem to have too much information; only what is essential. If you think differently, well, that is a content dispute to be settled on the article itself; it is not to be solved by completely deleting the article.--New questions? 10:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- At the very least, if Toho Moto Neta can be considered a reasonably reliable source (and I would say that it can be considered one, since it does have good editorial policy, and is very well-researched), then all locations in Gensokyo have very large relevance to the real-world, since most locations are very much related to the real world.--New questions? 21:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Open wikis are not considered reliable as they are edited by anyone.--十八 21:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- They are generally not considered reliable, but this one in particular is a well-respected source mostly with research from knowledgeable individuals.--New questions? 21:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP:USERG states open wikis are unreliable with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users., but I do not believe that wiki makes such a distinction.--十八 21:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I can concede and agree on that point. Still, when this location is the setting of various games independent from Team Shanghai Alice, like this, or this, or this, and when there are entire songs dedicated to it like 永遠と須臾の恋人 (which is significantly about escaping the moon capital to Gensokyko], I think that this alone should be considered "significant real-world impact."--New questions? 22:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Doujin games based on something pre-existing, like the three you listed, are largely not notable by themselves, as anyone can create a game based on any reasonably well-known media or series. The same could be applied to doujin music.--十八 22:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- The one by IOSYS, however, is definitely notable. Furthermore, one of the games, I listed (the first one), has been mentioned in news articles, like this one. Although this does not indicate that the doujin game itself is notable, it does indicate that it is a significant real-world impact.--New questions? 22:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Doujin games based on something pre-existing, like the three you listed, are largely not notable by themselves, as anyone can create a game based on any reasonably well-known media or series. The same could be applied to doujin music.--十八 22:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I can concede and agree on that point. Still, when this location is the setting of various games independent from Team Shanghai Alice, like this, or this, or this, and when there are entire songs dedicated to it like 永遠と須臾の恋人 (which is significantly about escaping the moon capital to Gensokyko], I think that this alone should be considered "significant real-world impact."--New questions? 22:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP:USERG states open wikis are unreliable with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users., but I do not believe that wiki makes such a distinction.--十八 21:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- They are generally not considered reliable, but this one in particular is a well-respected source mostly with research from knowledgeable individuals.--New questions? 21:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Open wikis are not considered reliable as they are edited by anyone.--十八 21:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Excessive coverage of a fictional subject lacking real-world notability, mostly written in an in-universe style and lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- The above conversation was long, so I suspect that you did not read through the whole thing. However, I would like to point you towards the fact that it did have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, like this game that is set in Gensokyo, which was mentioned in the news, as well as another game independent of Team Shanghai Alice also mentioned in the news here and here and so on. There are events like the Hakurei Shrine Reitaisai which was mentioned in the news as being a "festival at the Hakurei Shrine" as well. Finally, there are still those news articles that I have mentioned before, like this one, which had more than a passing mention on the nature of Gensokyo. What is your take on this?--New questions? 00:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not that I'm answering in Robofish's place, but I feel that I'm gonna be questionned about that too, so...
So first, you read WP:GNG more carefully: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail [...]Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". And "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Now that we all know what the GNG requirement means, let's check the "sources you're advancing:
*a video game, even "set in Gensokyo", remains a primary source and is thus completely irrelevant for notability purposes.
*promotional and short press releases about the games (and not even about the article topic, which is a fictional world) are of course not significant, not in detail, and just trivia. The same about short news report about a festival, that's purely primary source, just the commercial reporting of an event, and not even full coverage and analysis. The same for the "article" merely rehashing plot points.Folken de Fanel (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- A closer look at the news article for 不思議の幻想郷 does reveal it to be a press release, so I guess I was mistaken about that. However, there are definitely more articles about the Hakurei Shrine Reitaisai, like this and this (note that the latter one is also a review of the "Rice from the Sanzu River"). Also, that news article that I pointed out (namely, this one) was not a "promotional article about the games"―moreover, it had such information such as "Gensokyo is a place in the mountain recesses separated by the Great Hakurei Barrier, forgotten by the outside world, in which live humans and youkai" and so on which is a lot more detail than a "passing mention."--New questions? 04:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Moreover, in another news article that I mentioned previously, which is an independent review of one of the works, it had an even more detailed explanation of Gensokyo, explaining stuff like Hakurei Shrine, its relevance to the Outside World, about how it is modeled after Japan, and so on. Also, with regards to the Hakurei Shrine Reitaisai, there is this article which is an independent review of the event. Additionally, there is still the book review that I pointed out above, that explained about the "Gensokyo Chronicles" and "Bunbunmaru Newspaper" in Gensokyo as well as some other aspects of Gensokyo.--New questions? 04:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not that I'm answering in Robofish's place, but I feel that I'm gonna be questionned about that too, so...
- Delete as per Robofish. A huge heap of plot and insignificant trivia, nothing to salvage from it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2012 (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.