Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transia

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 keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion being opened. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transia[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable fictional country. No substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. There is no way to flesh the article out further then an in universe stub because there is no information to give it real world context or cover it's development and creation history Ridernyc (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC) *Delete. Not notable, no out-of-universe information. ^King Jakob _C2 00:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to keep. There seems to be significant coverage within the references. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 00:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would say this article is obscure, but notable. See Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable. When I reviewed the sources, it appears some sources are from the intellectual property owner, but some are from third-parties. This is subject that is probably only of interest to a small group, but still of encyclopedic interest. I didn't create the article, but found it useful and have tried to add to it. 42of8 (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have links to significant coverage in independent sources then please provide them. Ridernyc (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia policy, offline sources must be considered and must be taken on good faith WP:OSO. There is no requirement that sources be online. And people can see sources offline, it's not that hard. In my reasoning that this is notable, is that 1. comic book researchers talk about it. 2. It's been around for almost fifty years and is still being used. These two criteria imply there are sources although they are apparently difficult to find. A lot of fictional countries in comic books don't meet those criteria - like Draburg or Ksavia. The dozens of writers that have chosen to use Transia could have chosen a different location or made up yet another generic fictional Eastern European country. Also, I looked at other articles on fictional elements in comic books to see what sort of research was done. Per WP:FICTIONPLOT, primary sources can be used for fictional works within reason. So with that in mind, there is certainly room for expansion. If this were really not notable, I would think you could only find this country mentioned in one or two lesser comic books series. There are plenty of fictional countries in comic books that are just footnotes. But Transia has endured and has been included in popular comic book series year after year. It's important enough that Marvel is willing to feature it when talking about their own fictional countries. The problems with this article are surmountable. If feel your arguments are simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:BELONG, and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. And compiling what other researchers have already said or posting summaries from primary sources is not original research. That said, with Transia, I wonder if it should be merged with the article on Wundagore as it could make both stronger articles. It seems that the two fictional locations are nearly always included together in the comics, however, in looking at the list of where each is included they don't always match up. So it seems like it would be prudent to keep the articles separate as it looks like information is available for both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42of8 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided any sources so I'm not sure what this long rant is referring to. Ridernyc (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you have a problem with the sources in the article. 42of8 (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly. We need multiple independent reliable sources that cover the real world context of the subject in a non-trivial way. We have none that meet that criteria. Ridernyc (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 1 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, adequately sourced to show notability for a fictional country. bd2412 T 15:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Merge into the features article or delete it. There is nothing to establish independent notability, and the topic should only require a few sentences unless that criteria can be met. TTN (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe; Transia is already covered there with about as much detail as is justified by the available sources. Of the sources cited in the article, the Marvel Atlas is not independent, and Eternity Warriors, Comic Vine, and the Marvel Wiki are not reliable, so none of these help us with notability. As for reliable sources, this IGN article lists Transia one of Marvel's stand-ins for Eastern Europe, The Superhero Book calls it "one of Marvel's all-purpose Balkan backwaters," and this article talks about it a bit. The first two are only trivial mentions though, and the last is mostly just scans of primary sources, so I think a redirect/merge is the best option. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:27, 15 September 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe per Cerebellum. I think he said it all. Merging into Features seems appropriate for these semi-notable fictional locations, as they can't establish notability on their own. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Asking for real wold details is relevant only if wee are discussing the WP coverage of the entire work (or, in this case, group of works. When a fictional universe is so complicated or important or has so many different manifestations, that w need to divide up the coverage (as we certainly do for this one), then the individual parts of it will some of them necessarily be about only the in-universe portions. Otherwise, it's like asking that a subarticle on someone's Scientific work doesn't talk about his Life--in a split article, that's inevitable. If one really thinks this way, we can solve it by rtaining all the content and merging it into asingle very long article, but that's not a useful arrangement. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 19 September 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.