Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimension X (TMNT)

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, but has been improved. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimension X (TMNT)[edit]

This article doesn't have any notability of its own and as such is just a repetition of the times that Dimension X showed up in various TMNT media. The Turtles are awesome, but non-notable articles that duplicate the content of the episode articles aren't, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, this is the day for articles in fantasy land. Not notable outside the context of the turdles (sic). Pharmboy (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Pharmboy. Turdle power! -- Redfarmer (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep material goes across 3 media (comics, tv series and RPG). Agree needs sourcing though. Maybe 5 weeks isn't long enough over teh holiday period...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a notable location in a significant franchise. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough, I suppose, that it should be kept. That said, the article definitely needs citations and probably a bit of copy-editing. Alloranleon (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This apparently is a branch of a branch of a branch from the main article of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Seems cruel to ask editors to correctly find way to limit the size of an article by branching off sections then deleting them. Perhaps they could have done a better job but let's not punish them for trying. I see three books that cover the subject and will add them for future editor's use; I would think that DVD commentary or other routes of covering character development could also be found. Benjiboi 12:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And restore the Technodrome (which, just like Dimension X, is in the 1987 cartoon and the 1988 Archie TMNT Adventures Comics) article. When younger people hear the word Dimension X, they don't think of some early 1950's radio program that aired long before they were born, instead they think of the TMNT. The article has existed for years, and removing it does not makes Wikipedia better. I think Wikipedia can be about many things, both about fact and fiction. Just because you aren't interested in something, it doesn't mean that the entire world shares your opinion. It is like if I would run into the library and shout at them: "-Why do you have books about things I am not intesrested in, remove them". J 1982 22:03, 1 January 2008 (CET)

Comment - The location has asserted no independent notability outside of the turtles franchise, and just because the franchise is notable doesn't mean every location and character is. Notability is determined by referencing, and if you can't actually demonstrate some referencing, then there is no reason to keep this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure if the purpose of an article is to reinforce what young people expect, or to provide historical information relevent to the topic. Fictional worlds rarely have notability outside the context of their particular storyline, which seems is the standard for notability. Not sure where this is used outside of TMNT, and think Judgesurreal777 is spot on with this one. No one has *SHOWN* me any relevance the place has outside of TMNT, nor has the article itself. Pharmboy (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I tend to concur with Judgesurreal777 and Pharmboy. I was thinking, it had been mentioned in other tangentially related discussion, that we have articles on every species of animal, and so we should have articles on all fictional characters, and you sort of nod and think, okay I see the point. And then you think, okay, we have an article on the Flores Tiger, but would we have an article on the particular flowers it pollinates, by which I mean flowers x y and z which grow in meadow foo on the southern edge of the hamlet of a on the most Easterly island in Indonesia? Would we devote an entire article to the specific infrastructure of the wings of the butterfly, which one could do simply by studying a photograph of the butterfly and describing what one saw? I assert we would not. Therefore, should we do the same for fictional topics, basically, should we watch them and describe what we see, in ever decreasing circles of detail. Hiding T 23:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps going into such detail wouldn't seem needed but hardly means we can't have an article about the subject, ther's plenty of articles i find extremely tedious and trivial yet I recognize that sports fans have their heroes, opera buffs love their conductors and yes cartoon turtles have their fans as well. All articles should be written well but we also expect that that may not happen immediately. At a recent RfA the candidate, IMHO, correctly asserted that the readers and contributors of Disney and cartoon articles need a bit more patience and TLC then say experienced editors delving through nuances of Shakespearean prose. Is this article a treasure, maybe not; can it be improved upon, definitely. We can afford the bandwidth as well as the time to help push the editor(s) in the right direction. Benjiboi 00:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whether we have an article on this or not is a matter for consensus. It is for the consensus of Wikipedians to decide where we say enough is enough. Were one to cut from the article all information that is unsourced, where would we then be left? Yes, there needs to be compromise from those who would exclude, but also from those who would include. Where do we draw the line in the sand? When is the right time to say, this article is full of original research, poorly written and lacking sources? And if now is the right time, when is the time to edit the article to improve it? Is that not also now? And what does the recent edit history show us? Hiding T 13:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we have to say enough is enough, there is room in wikipedia for all manner of subjects and interests. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean a good article can't still emerge. And just because some subject seems terribly trivial doesn't mean it holds no fascination for many readers who looks to wikipedia for clear objective information on all manner of subjects from the history of coffee production to development of laws to sports to Star Trek episodes. Our goal should be focussed on building good articles which I still believe this could become. As part of that process less experienced editors should be encouraged to share their bits and bytes of knowledge that will help those of us who don't see the inherent value in such articles understand that such artwork was deeply influenced by NASA and space-exploration, for instance, or post-modern art movements. Yes the article needs work and yes it can be greatly improved but so can thousands of other articles which are considered plenty notable with just as few sources and just as many other problems. I suggest they should all be improved and editors encouraged to do so rather than have their work expunged altogether thus wasting all their thoughtful work and effort. Benjiboi 22:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should be in a rush to support less experienced editors in how to produce better quality articles rather than in a rush to erase less than fabulous articles thus likely repelling those same potentially valuable editors. Benjiboi 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree overly much with anything you say. Hiding T 15:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is not that notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Similar level of info to other TMNT location articles. The "repeated information" is not easily found, so this is a useful summary. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is useful and what about other article type reasons are considered non-arguments for AFDs. Pharmboy (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user went further than that though. Also, that essay is ridiculously unhelpful. Simply stating it is not that notable is also an unhelpful argument. The debate is important, not each and every individual comment, and if a consensus of wikipedians decides that there is utility in keeping an article, it should remain. If consensus dictates that the encyclopedia is improved with this information within it, it matters little that that consensus is reached merely because of that utility. What matters is that that consensus is respected per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOT. Hiding T 13:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, merge with the said duplicate episode article, otherwise delete. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.}• 13:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Transwiki its been a while since I've watched TMNT, but I'm sure there was an episode or two based in Dimension X, any notable information should be merged into that episodes article, or, if such an article exists I'm sure theres an applicable Wikia available. Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several episodes were based a lot in Dimension X ("The Dimension X Story", "Planet of the Turtles", "Four Turtles and a Baby", "The Foot Soldiers are Revolting", "Convicts from Dimension X", "Shredder Triumphant", "Turtle Trek", "Divide and Conquer" and maybe some more), and much of the Archie TMNT Adventures Comics (Hirobyl, Morbus, Stump Asteroid). You can read more about it at the ninjaturtles website. J 1982 18:25, 6 January 2008 (CET)

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.