Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Line


 * 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. Sources have been added, but this AfD has not established whether they show notability. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Line

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an article about a Babylon 5 battle which is not notable outside of the series. The article is 100% plot summary of Babylon 5 and contains no hint of an indication that this battle is in any way notable other than as part of Babylon 5. Wikipedia is not the Babylon 5 wiki. WP:NOT makes clear that Wikipedia is not the place for plot-only summaries of fictional works. WP:WAF cautions against large amounts of in-universe content, and makes clear that articles about events from fiction must be notable in their own right. WP:INUNIVERSE explains more of the pitfalls of keeping articles like this. Savidan 07:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable plot element of a major fictional universe which has received print coverage outside the work itself. See Google News and Google Books references.  No objection to massive cleanup, but this article needs surgery, not a bullet in the head. Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No doubt, sources have written about the plot of Babylon 5, and some have mentioned the words "Battle of the Line"; I am not arguing against including any plot summary or mention of the Battle of the Line in the Babylon 5 article. That is a different animal entirely than saying that the Battle of the Line is independently notable outside of the Babylon 5 universe. The sources that come up on those searches are trivial mentions, not entire published works about the battle itself. Those two links come up with a grand total of 15 trivial mentions. In addition to only trivially mentioning the battle, half of them are to non-reliable sources (e.g. Lew Rockwell.com). The first google books hit is even quoting the Wikipedia article itself! I don't think you could scrape together two whole sentences of article if you restricted yourself to what could be cited to those articles; the only possible purpose for having an entire article as opposed to mentioning this in the Babylon 5 article is to overload on plot summary. Savidan 07:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are very narrowly construing notability requirements for fictional elements in a way that does not have widespread consensus. Likewise, there is not a widespread consensus that WP:SS split-outs for fictional topics are allowed ad infinitum.  Consensus seems to lie somewhere between the two extremes, and The Battle of the Line is a recurring element throughout the first season of Babylon 5. If you want to help me upgrade the Babylon 5 articles to a year/season based format like more currently created television show articles have, I'd be happy to have this merged there--again, with appropriate cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Jclemens (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In doing my research for my !vote on this, I came across the index of Babylon 5 articles and my jaw hit the floor. I mean, Babylon 5 is a major fictional universe and I was expecting it to have several articles, but the sheer number of individual articles we have on it beggars belief.  Category:Babylon 5 has eleven subcategories.  It's insane: a totally ludicrous number.  We need to go through the whole thing merging them into a smaller number of longer articles, and in the process, taking a large axe to all the in-universe stuff. For Battle of the Line, I'm going to go with merge to Earth-Minbari war, which is presently a redirect, but needs to be resurrected as a separate article so we can merge other B5-related material to it.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  07:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please help merge all the small articles! Most of this content stems from the early days of Wikipedia, before WP:N, before WP:CLT.  I wholeheartedly agree that the entire area should be brought up to current standards. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I fail to see the relevance of WP:CLT?— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  08:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake--I meant WP:CLN, but since Wikiproject Charlotte appears defunct, I redirected it to the same spot. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are way too may articles that serve no purpose other than plot summary. But what makes you think that the "war" itself is notable outside the series? Savidan 07:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be the GNG.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  08:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  —Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —Jclemens (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as clearly fails WP:NOT. This article is also unsourced and is comprised of original research, and gives undue weight to fictional events that have never taken place rather than the real world context; it is completely devoid any information about the battle's literary development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis. There is no reasonable argument for keeping this article other than WP:IKNOWIT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remember to AGF. "There is no reasonable argument" does not. Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * AGF does not mean assume that others are correct, only that they are not malicious. Savidan 18:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Gavin.collins, would you care to revisit the article as it stands now and comment on how many of your objections have been rectified by my rewrite? Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Anyone who wants to understand what the series is about, will find this well written detailed article a valuable and interesting resource. Found in the television series, made for television movies, books, and the comic books.   D r e a m Focus  23:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Earth-Minbari war unless enough sources can be found to justify spinning this article out from that one. Edward321 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to a redirect? That's too funny. Jack Merridew 09:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; fictional events are viable subjects of articles (cf., e.g., The West Wing presidential election, 2006, Crisis_on_Infinite_Earths, etc.), and any problems with content can be resolved through WP:SOFIXIT rather than AFD. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or possibly merge. They can be viable subjects, but its an editing decision. Whether kept or merged, I think the length ihere is excessive, but that's an editing decision also.  And, what is more, the nomination gives   no reason given why it should not be at least a redirect. There's a good explanation for that: there is no possibly valid reason.   Anything anyone might want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In all fairness to the nominator, he DID redirect it... but to Babylon 5 in general. Better than simply nominating it out of hand, but still not useful to people seeking an explanaton of it. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * and it was reverted. The next step would have been a discussion on the article talk p., not here. DGG (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable, unsourced, original research, yada-yada... Redirect rather dubious as this is a rather generic term. Jack Merridew 09:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack Merridew, would you care to revisit the article as it stands now and comment on how many of your objections have been rectified by my rewrite? Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE I suppose I could use afdrescued here, but it really doesn't do justice to the hours I've spent adding sources, trimming the plot summary, and including refences to the storyline. Much was added, much was deleted, such that less than 50% of this article is the same as the nominated version. Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The added refs pertain only to the significance to the plot. No notability outside of the plot is demonstrated or even asserted. Savidan 21:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's correct. I disagree with your reading of fiction notability standards.  There are multiple, non-trivial mentions in independent reliable sources: the GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You continue to misrepresent WP:WAF. It clearly states that "the subjects real-world notability should be established" by the GNG. "Real-world" cannot mean importance to a fictional universe. Savidan 18:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the real world, this battle was depicted in multiple fictional works, multiple works commenting on those fictional works, specific comments were made by the series creator about how a cast change affected the storyline resolution, and it has been linked in commentary as an allegory to Dunkirk. I'm rather afraid that it's not me misrepresenting the GNG, it's you who's not understanding what existing consensus is regarding articles on fictional elements. What in addition to this could you possibly want? Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I've never watched a single episode of Babylon 5, but in reading the article, this appears to be a critical point in the series that probably should have its own article. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE 2 Five days have passed since my rewrite, with no new delete or merge !votes, and neither of the non-nominator !voters returning to comment on my improvements. If anyone has any remaining issues, please raise them in the next 9 hours, as I will be out of town thereafter. Jclemens (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I have already pointed out that your rewrite did not address the fundamental concerns of myself or (presumably) the other users supporting deletion. If you really wish to "rewrite" the article, please find sources that write about the Battle of the Line in a way that does not merely summarize the plot. However, I suspect you have already been diligent in your research and come up with any sources that might exist. Savidan 16:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You may not presume that the !voters remain unsatisfied with the rewrite, much as I may not presume that they have been satisfied. Your objections are noted but not echoed by others; I remain convinced that they do not reflect consensus on how to write about fictional elements.  Furthermore, were I truly done with the article, I would have submitted it to WP:GAN; other sources do exist that have not been integrated into the text. Jclemens (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to get all snooty about it. I was just trying to suggest to you what the next step should be if you truly wish to resolve any of the concerns stated here. There is no point in demanding that people repeat themselves just because you have edited the article in a way tangential to the primary argument against notability. Savidan 17:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remember to AGF--I wasn't calling you malicious, merely incorrect. Likewise, the tangentiality of my improvements is an issue that only you have brought up.  I'm absolutely interested in resolving legitimate concerns, but do not believe your assertion that the article as it stands now lacks sufficient notability has any merit. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * +1 peer-reviewed commentary source added. That's two independent reliable sources which are providing literary commentary on the plot element.  So, even assuming for the sake of argument that the plot-related stuff is somehow inadmissable or inappropriate, the article subject still meets the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.