Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mooninites (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 List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters#Ignignokt and Err. T. Canens (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mooninites[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Characters are not notable outside of the ATHF series, and the 2007 Boston Mooninite panic. Both of those are notable, just not these minor characters. Only trivial references by and large. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Only one of the five sections covers the in-universe aspect of the topic, at an reasonable and appropriate length. The remainder of the fully-sourced article covers out-of-universe information about the characters, including production information and reception sections. Grapesoda22 (✉) 17:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are the show itself or things like dvd commentary. The rest are fairly trivial references. They're not notable outside of the show and the one event. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only 6 of the sources are episodes of the series, used solely in the in-universe section. 6 sources out of 29 isn't exactly "Most of the sources". Also, only 2 sources are DVD commentaries, which is very much a valid source of production information. Numerous pages, including several GA-level episodes of The Simpsons, cite DVD commentaries. Grapesoda22 (✉) 01:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to show that they meet WP:GNG in terms of the real world. Lots of trivial mentions, listings, etc. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what Grapesoda22 said, and the ATHF character articles in general should just be rewritten. IceWalrus236 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters. There is not a lot of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, as the episodes themselves and the DVD commentaries are both primary sources. The majority of the remaining sources are either from unreliable sources (the fan wikis) or are just brief mentions of them in top ten lists or articles about the series as a whole that just mentions them without any sort of in-depth coverage. The only subject that is adequately covered by reliable secondary sources is the 2007 incident in Boston, and as that already has its own article, the information does not need to be duplicated here. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: – for the record non of the sources are fan wikis. The wiki URL is an archived link from the official show-site of the series, it is was never editable. Also, reception links come from reputable sources such as IGN and Heavy.com. Grapesoda22 (✉) 01:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Then the official site would also count as primary sources, and thus do nothing to establish notability, so the point still stands. Rorshacma (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment the two show-site sources just confirm basic information. They are only used in one section and are even backed up alongside a Heavy.com link. Grapesoda22 (✉) 22:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Grapesoda22. I'd personally argue that there's sufficient sourcing in the article already for it to meet GNG. Scope and content of the article save for a paragraph or two is completely different from that of the Boston incident too, so not a content fork either. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 12:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grapesoda22 and others above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly pretty baffled at the Keep votes, seeing as the pages for the actual main cast are mostly Delete and redirect. The sources cited in the page are woefully inadaquate to pass GNG. Review:

Sources 1-7 are literally just the show itself.
8 is just some page on how to stream the show
9-11 are Adult swim WP:PRIMARY sources
12: interview with trivial mention of the characters
13: More DVD commentary
14: Trivial mention
15: Trivial mention
16: Amazon listing, seriously?!
17-18: 10 best villains page. A start, but it's still borderline trivial.
19-22: All dealing with the boston incident.
23: interview with trivial mentions
24: Trivial mention
25: Cover art of the dvd
26: citing one of the ATHF games
27-29: citing various Adult Swim and ATHF sources.

For those keeping score, that's a whopping 16 sources that are just primay sources from Adult Swim. And another source was a freaking amazon store listing! The rest of the sources have only trivial mentions of the cast. You guys must have very low threshold for coverage, as simply mentioning the cast in an article seems to be enough. But WP:GNG asks for sources that are in depth, that is, there should be articles about just these characters. We don't have that. We have instead a lot of primary, and some trivial mentions strung together for an article.

Conclusion: these characters do not pass GNG at all. The show and the boston bomb incident are notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters per Harizotoh's breakdown of the sources. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Aoba47: Re:Breakdown of the sources:

Sources 1-7 are episode citations that are only used in the in-universe section. (which Harizotoh never mentioned)
Source 8 is a Heavy.com page critically reviewing the long-running series as a whole, that makes a point to mention these characters specifically, it is not "just some page on how to stream the show".
Sources 9 and 10 were in-fact from Adult Swim, but have since been removed and the same information is still backed by source 8.
What is now Source 9 is actually a DVD commentary, which is widely considered a viable source for production information on Wikipedia.
Source 10 is an interview with the creator, which is only meant to cover one line of information.
Source 11 is another DVD commentary, which again, is widely considered a viable source for production information.
Source 12 is a link an The A.V. Club article that devotes an entire section discussing the pilot.
Source 13 is an IGN article that offers even more backing for the section.
Source 14 is in-fact Amazon, but it can be removed quite simply and the aforementioned IGN would still cover the information sufficiently.
Sources 15 and 16 are links to Paste and IGN, that make a point of mentioning the characters reviewing the series as a whole.
Sources 17–20 are all viable news sources discussing a major story that made national news, which was spearheaded by these characters. Why wouldn't the panic be covered here?
Source 21 is an interview another, which is only meant to cover cover one line of information.
Source 22 is a link from Geek.com, is only meant cover one line of information.
Source 23 is a DVD cover, which can be seamlessly removed with no issue.
Source 24 does source a video game. So what? It is information that is relevant to the topic. The ability to cite video games is the whole reason Template:cite video game exists in the first place.
Sources 25–27 Are different media appearances have made outside of the franchise, that are each cited appropriately.

Grapesoda22 (✉) 23:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very, very confused about WP:GNG. By going through the list, I was showing that not a single source referenced was an indepth article on the characters. GNG is very explicit. You need articles that are indepth about the subject. What you have is a bunch of articles that mention the Mooninites, but aren't the main subject matter. You really need like NYTimes pieces just on the characters. You don't have that. You have a series of trivial references to the characters found in articles about the show and the boston event. That the article had to rely so heavily on primary sources to even be a decent length demonstrates how unimportant and not notable the characters are. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just listed numerous secondary sources used throughout the article, so it does not "rely" on primary sources. All of the reception sources feature entire sections devoted to the critic's respective takes on the characters, none of them are just quick passing mentions at all. Your argument that there needs to be sources that are completely devoted to the topic is even contradicted in WP:GNG, as the very first bullet point clearly states "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Grapesoda22 (✉) 02:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like the question here is whether some of the sources cited meet the WP:GNG criteria for notability-establishing sources. The discussion is not entirely conclusive; some more comments would be appreciated
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking through all the sources, I don't see anything which discusses the Mooninites significantly as the Mooninites. I'm sure there's a redirect or merge option here since we do have character lists all over this site and I'm fine with either of those, but this article fails WP:GNG badly (partially as evidenced by the source review above). The Heavy article is about the show as a whole, the Paste/IGN articles are clickbait list articles, and the Boston scare is about a separate event. SportingFlyer T·C 11:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge Due to disgraceful abuse of sourcing (anyone who has to resort to using Amazon.com as a “source” has lost the damn plot), the only reasonable decision here is to delete this and merge it with Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Trillfendi (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, only one single source is Amazon, for information that still has backing when removed. Calling the sourcing here a "disgraceful abuse" is a pretty hyperbolic statement; I mean we don't have to agree with each-other but we should still try to remain civility. Grapesoda22 (✉) 03:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem like it merits a merge, being purely Wikia-caliber material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2019 (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.