Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millennium Items (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Yu-Gi-Oh! This is now the 2nd AfD, and there are still no sources in the article. It is not acceptable to keep it around indefinitely in its unsourced state as a separate article. If sources can be found, undo the redirect and make it into a free-standing article again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Items

Subject is not covered by independent, reliable sources in significant detail. Mentions in books and news items are limited to trivial accounts, works of fiction or licensed works. The article itself is comprised of editor interpretation and synthesis, plot summary and to a lesser extent game guide material. It has been tagged as lacking any references since 2007. The previous AfD was closed in July as no consensus with the (correct) observation that no one knew what to do with the page. Mergers, redirects, deletion and keeping the page were all proposed. Following that outcome, I proposed and widely advertised a merger of the content into parent articles (As can be seen on the talk page). This resulted in little action or interest from project members. So if a merger is proposed again at this AfD, please be aware that it is unlikely to happen without some external input and that the likely outcome of a merge close would be to leave the article in its current state. Protonk (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Protonk (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Protonk (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of the reason why the merge did not happen is because of the difficulty in interweaving information about these MacGuffins (yes, that's what they are) into the prose of the character articles and the YGO main articles. My previous suggestion of merging the different Items to the relevant characters was replied with by the fact that these items change hands frequently. That being said, I honestly think Wikipedia is better off without the information. Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia covers it just fine. JuJube (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect there are some RS out there with slightly better than in-passing references. [1], [2]. Don't know where to... Hobit (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside a discussion of the specific sources, I think we need a proper merge target before we can responsibly close this as "merge". That was precisely the problem we had last time. Protonk (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't a good merge target, I'd argue to keep. Don't know the area well enough to suggest one. But in looking stuff up for this, it seems notable in exactly one version of the game. Why not merge there? (Forbidden Memories?)Hobit (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll contest your claim that your first source is more than a trivial mention. I can't decipher the second source, so it may be significant coverage, but the first source doesn't seem like anything more than a namecheck. As far as merging to Yu-Gi-Oh! Forbidden Memories, I would prefer it be merged higher in the hierarchy rather than lower. Honestly the three possible targets I see are Yu-Gi-Oh!, Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series), or Yu-Gi-Oh! (1998 TV series). But no one at the project seemed to know which was a proper target. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Millennium Items" are MacGuffins with "vaguely established powers" (as the abridged series that doesn't exist according to Wikipedia puts it ^_^) that everyone wants. Describing it in its own article would consist of just plot summaries and I think the current YGO articles (series and characters) gives it all the emphasis it merits. It should be deleted. JuJube (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete the redirect (move history elsewhere) since this is likely to be confused with items related to millennarianism (doomsday items) Merge to whatever Yugioh article is most appropriate. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a full article on a plot point. clearly not notable --T-rex 16:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The detail is excessive, and does represent fan material. If there is a god target, a summary should be merged. If not, the material in the present article should be summarized appropriately. AfD is not the place for editing articles. I point out that merge and then delete the redirect is a/inappropriate unless there is a question of copyvio or libel, since it otherwise would be a violation of GFDL. There is a difference between how to handle truly objectionable content and merely non-notable. There is no need to remove deleted material from visibility in page histories, and no policy calling for it. It is such suggestions that can lead people to distrust proposals for redirects. DGG (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the recommendation? If the article is to be kept, where are the sources or potential sources? If it is to be merged, what is the target(s)? I don't want this discussion to end up with the same result as the last one: no consensus between multiple mutually exclusive alternatives. Protonk (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Really, just source it and keep it as some sort of character list-type thing. What we have here is a list of major recurring elements in the series that ideally should be explained in their own section and have nowhere else to go, which is in essence what a list of fictional characters is. Also, I'm pretty sure there is some level of "real-world notablity" to these in the form of merchandise. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what reliable, independent sources are we to use in sourcing this article? Protonk (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manga pages, episodes, fanbooks, and etc. There's absolutely no need for "independent" sources here, they won't actually improve or validate the article's content or increase/decrease its overarching importance to other ones. Think outside the box. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, WP:N requires the use of independent sources. The question I'm left asking is, if no reliable, independent source has determined that significant coverage of these items is important, why is wikipedia first? Protonk (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then go argue at WP:N that major elements of a series other than characters should be qualified to have spinout article status. And I don't see what OR has to do with this at all. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to argue at WP:N. It's written into the guideline already. And OR comes in because wikipedia isn't meant to be the first place work is done on a subject--in this case, critical analysis of these items. Protonk (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable, independent sources for these items, as is required by WP:N. This material would be better suited to a specialist Yu-gi-oh wiki or something of that nature. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.