Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City Block (Judge Dredd)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
City Block (Judge Dredd)[edit]
- City Block (Judge Dredd) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created in 2004, and redirected to Judge Dredd in late 2011 without discussion, un-redirected, and then re-redirected. The editor's reason was "Fails WP:N: non-notable element of a fictional universe not discussed in multiple third-party sources". Due to the age of the article and the contested redirection I feel that a proper AfD is appropriate, to give any interested editors a chance to comment. I concur that this article does not appear to meet GNG. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not convinced outright deletion is the best option here. Maybe it would be better simply to return it to being a redirect? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For what purpose? Either it meets criteria for inclusion or it does not. Redirecting with no AfD is just a state of hibernation; it could be put back at any time, but isn't serving any purpose in the meantime, and it isn't being improved. It would be better to move it to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, where at least it could be improved upon, or deleted if it cannot be improved. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the same purpose as any other redirect: it takes someone looking it up to the most relevant related article. This could be perfectly useful as a redirect, and the fact that someone might inappropriately turn it back into an article is not a justification for outright deletion. There are all kinds of useful redirects that could inappropriately be turned into articles, but we don't delete them because of that. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're talking about two separate things here. The redirect itself is not helpful, because it is unlikely someone would use it. If they did use it, they would find no info related to the redirect at their destination. All they would find is that the topic is related in some way to Judge Dredd, which they already know from going to City Block (Judge Dredd). And then there is the article itself. I agree that the fact that someone might inappropriately turn it back into an article is not a justification for outright deletion, which is what the AfD is for. Not meeting our criteria for inclusion is justification for outright deletion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a valid redirect to other articles, for example Mega-City One. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, that would be a valid redirect. As I said, I see this as two separate issues. Deleting an article doesn't prevent a perfectly valid redirect being created at that location (unless the redirect is somehow offensive). It wasn't the redirect itself that I was putting up for deletion; I would have done that at WP:RfD. It was the method of removing the article that I didn't agree with. If this article is a problem, it should be fixed or deleted, not swept under the rug. That isn't solving anything, just saving the solving for a later day. I'm sure people do this to articles all of the time, and there is no policy against it. There is also no policy against re-instating the article and putting it up for a proper AfD. There is no logical reason for redirects to have long and varied histories filled with material that does not meet our inclusion criteria. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Johnny: I don't think any of us have a problem with the title existing as a redirect to a parent topic, but if we agree that the topic isn't suitable for a stand-alone article, and the content isn't worth keeping, then we should delete the content and then create a redirect at the title. If we simply redirect without deletion, then anyone can simply come along and restore the article just by clicking undo, even if the consensus at AfD was that it shouldn't be an article. There have been at least a dozen such cases—where consensus was that a topic wasn't suitable for a stand-alone article, but instead of being deleted the article was simply redirected—where I've had to keep a title on my watchlist for years just so I can revert every time an IP comes along and undoes a redirect. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but people can always turn a redirect into an article (even if its past history as an article is removed) if they're sufficiently determined or know enough about the subject. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these edits stay in user contributions, so people can easily stumble across the content. Also these intact histories allow direct inbound links to specific versions. The real question is, why would it be desirable to keep the article history of an article whose subject matter does not meet our criteria for inclusion? What would be the benefit? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Polisher, I've no prejudice against anyone taking a crack at writing a decent article that meets our notability thresholds (demonstrable secondary source coverage) and style guides (focus on real-world aspects, not just plot summary). But there isn't a thing worth keeping in this article, and the basic premise of the "city blocks" of the Judge Dredd comics is already well-described at Judge Dredd#Dredd's world. What is the benefit of keeping a bloated plot summary lingering around in some redirect's version history? There's no indication that this is a suitable topic for a stand-alone article, and even if there was it'd likely have to be rewritten completely to meet our inclusion standards. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these edits stay in user contributions, so people can easily stumble across the content. Also these intact histories allow direct inbound links to specific versions. The real question is, why would it be desirable to keep the article history of an article whose subject matter does not meet our criteria for inclusion? What would be the benefit? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but people can always turn a redirect into an article (even if its past history as an article is removed) if they're sufficiently determined or know enough about the subject. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Johnny: I don't think any of us have a problem with the title existing as a redirect to a parent topic, but if we agree that the topic isn't suitable for a stand-alone article, and the content isn't worth keeping, then we should delete the content and then create a redirect at the title. If we simply redirect without deletion, then anyone can simply come along and restore the article just by clicking undo, even if the consensus at AfD was that it shouldn't be an article. There have been at least a dozen such cases—where consensus was that a topic wasn't suitable for a stand-alone article, but instead of being deleted the article was simply redirected—where I've had to keep a title on my watchlist for years just so I can revert every time an IP comes along and undoes a redirect. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, that would be a valid redirect. As I said, I see this as two separate issues. Deleting an article doesn't prevent a perfectly valid redirect being created at that location (unless the redirect is somehow offensive). It wasn't the redirect itself that I was putting up for deletion; I would have done that at WP:RfD. It was the method of removing the article that I didn't agree with. If this article is a problem, it should be fixed or deleted, not swept under the rug. That isn't solving anything, just saving the solving for a later day. I'm sure people do this to articles all of the time, and there is no policy against it. There is also no policy against re-instating the article and putting it up for a proper AfD. There is no logical reason for redirects to have long and varied histories filled with material that does not meet our inclusion criteria. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a valid redirect to other articles, for example Mega-City One. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're talking about two separate things here. The redirect itself is not helpful, because it is unlikely someone would use it. If they did use it, they would find no info related to the redirect at their destination. All they would find is that the topic is related in some way to Judge Dredd, which they already know from going to City Block (Judge Dredd). And then there is the article itself. I agree that the fact that someone might inappropriately turn it back into an article is not a justification for outright deletion, which is what the AfD is for. Not meeting our criteria for inclusion is justification for outright deletion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the same purpose as any other redirect: it takes someone looking it up to the most relevant related article. This could be perfectly useful as a redirect, and the fact that someone might inappropriately turn it back into an article is not a justification for outright deletion. There are all kinds of useful redirects that could inappropriately be turned into articles, but we don't delete them because of that. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For what purpose? Either it meets criteria for inclusion or it does not. Redirecting with no AfD is just a state of hibernation; it could be put back at any time, but isn't serving any purpose in the meantime, and it isn't being improved. It would be better to move it to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, where at least it could be improved upon, or deleted if it cannot be improved. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No sources to establish notability . Fictional element of a fictional universe without enough real-world content or significance to stand alone. WP:NOT#PLOT as well. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have nominated a mess of related articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawgiver (Judge Dredd). --IllaZilla (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Whatever the consensus here, it's probably best not to close this discussion until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawgiver (Judge Dredd) closes. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's a reasonable WP:SPINOFF from other Judge Dredd articles. Merging back into another Judge Dredd article is a possibility, but if it is merged it cannot be deleted as deletion may potentially cause licensing problems. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Rangoondispenser (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to relist this, there is a discussion about this going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lawgiver_(Judge_Dredd). Please post all comments there. Richard75 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Said discussion has since been closed with no consensus, with the closing admin suggesting either AfDing each article individually or in smaller packs. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nomination seems to be an argument about redirection. That is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. The topic is notable, being discussed in detail in sources such as Comics & culture: analytical and theoretical approaches to comics, Action/spectacle cinema: a sight and sound reader and Art & the city: a dream of urbanity. Warden (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources posted by Warden and Rangoondispenser (via this "rodeo"). Additionally, this discussion indicates a concern over a redirect dispute, which is not what AfD is for. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2012 (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.