Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoo (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 no consensus. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spoo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has no significant coverage outside of materials related to the series; real-world references are largely trivial (a spoof of South Park, a rap-filk artist, and a licensed cookbook). Fails GNG as there are no significant third-party sources discussing the topic presented. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominators arguments. This is non-notable fancruft cited to Babylon 5 sources and message forums. Sionk (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only does it have plenty of RS coverage, in the form of at least four dead-tree published books, it is...
- Currently a good article. No good article review has been proposed.
- A former featured article that was delisted (and rightly so) after the criteria changed.
- The April Fool's featured article from 2006.
The nominator also tried to PROD it against policy, nominated it without placing any tags requesting improvement, fails to articulate any search for sources per WP:BEFORE, and has not engaged on the talk page. The nominator also fails to consider options for merging or redirecting per deletion policy. Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jclemens, good or featured article criteria don't mention notability. Whether an article has gone through such a process is immaterial. You're arguing rules rather than content. Can you provide more info on these books helping the article meet GNG? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I own three of them--not the RPG one, however; I have them about 20' from me. You, too, can buy them entirely cheap off of Amazon or a bookseller of your choice, just like I did solely for the purposes of upgrading Wikipedia's content on Babylon 5. I used them to rewrite the article almost entirely when I took if from a de-featured article back to GA. The mere presence of as many sources I already included in the article already refutes the central premise of your nomination--that is, that the topic is not covered extensively in reliable sources and hence does not meet the GNG. The fact that you've just admitted never having read them or searched for them before nominating does tend to emphasize that this nomination has no merit. You should know better. Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be of great help if you could provide the quotes for the offline mentions. The contorted wording of the article suggests the book references are about the Babylon 5 episodes, rather than 'extensive' (or any) coverage about Spoo. To be honest, I'd change my comment to a 'weak keep' if I beleived a number of the book sources gave significant coverage about spoo. On the basis that the bulk of the article is based on a fan forum it strongly suggests the subject doesn't warrant its own article. Sionk (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute--someone nominates an article for deletion, and it somehow becomes my obligation to spoon feed you the evidence? Per WP:OFFLINE your obligation is actually to go get your own copy--library, including interlibrary loan, is recommended. Still, I'll give you one: "G'Kar intercepts a consignment of fresh spoo -- which no Centauri would ever be seen dead eating -- and realizes that a Narn must be held captive somewhere in the Palace." Lane 1999, p. 147. "Spoo, the clue that triggers Londo and G'Kar into realising that there is a Narn prisoner in the palace, has been mentioned several times previously in this series, most notably in epsidodes 101 ('Midnight on the Firing Line') and 203 ('The Geometry of Shadows')" Lane 1999, p. 148. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was your obligation, I simply said it would be a great help. Sionk (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, those citations do not present any evidence that the subject is notable per GNG. Those are plot recaps, which I would never use to suggest an episode of B5, Star Trek, et al was notable,l let alone a food featured in those episodes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and nominate for GAR first if desired. BOZ (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens, It is/was a WP:FA & WP:GA so it deserves keeping IMO.. Davey2010T 01:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Babylon 5 contact does not make it automatically non-notable.
Keep per Jclemens. Sufficient sources, and its relevance to things outside B5 strengthens the argument for a separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG; the fact that it is a GA and a former FA is not a reason to keep. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - It lacks actual sources discussing the topic, and it relies essentially on minor trivia not constituting significant coverage. Assuming there is an article it wouldn't clutter, like something describing interactions between the writers and fans, trimming the "Origin" section to a small paragraph and merging it seems like the best option. The "Real-world references" section is pure trivia. I could get mentioning if it were a significant plot point in a South Park episode, but relying on a minor spoof of South Park that probably doesn't even constitute an article for itself is just scraping through the bottom of the barrel, through the crust, and into the mantel. TTN (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in RS is sufficient to satisfy the general notability guideline. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:GNG, many of the keeps reeks like ILIKEIT, being a GA (which I have no idea how) isn't a reason to keep the article. Secret ^account 15:35, 24 November 2013 (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.