Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danger Room


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Danger Room

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Toughpigs with the following rationale " don't have decent sources to offer right now, but the Danger Room is well known and viewed as an iconic part of the X-Men mythos. If you've got a problem with the page, then I think it's more appropriate to use AfD and get more peoples' opinions". I am sorry, but WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES or THEREMAYBESOURCES is not good enough. Can anyone find something that discusses this room in-depth, and goes beyond a plot summary or a, sigh, screenshot? Seriously, a third of the references in this article are screenshots. That's quite extreme OR+FANCRUFT :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Clearly notable topic that has become a major trope in pop culture. It gets a pages-long summary in 100 Things X-Men Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die (#44 - Danger Room), as well as numerous pages in the DK X-Men encyclopedia. I am sure there are numerous other significant mentions out there given the Danger Room's long history and usage in X-Men comics and films.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's all plot summary, and the DC X-Men encyclopedia is a PRIMARY source to boot, so totally irrelevant (it's jut a comic book-style encyclopedia, very in-universe). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The encyclopedia isn't a primary source. It was Marvel licensed but published by DK, who collated the information. The other book isn't a primary source either. Primary means it has to come directly from Marvel, which it doesn't.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just look at the page visible in the IA. It's a comic book, not a serious publication. Primary sources about Marvel don't have to be published directly by Marvel. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a cross-section diagram of a building, which plenty of "serious publications" contain. It doesn't look like any sort of comic book I've ever heard of. It's clearly an encyclopedia. Unless you plan to disqualify any encyclopedia entries from reputable publications because they contain pictures.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To illustrate ZXCVBNM's point further, just compare the DK Guide: London, page 7 or 152/153. I don't see any reason why this should not be used on Wikipedia as a reliable source. It surely isn't the primary source for Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's Cathedral; rather perhaps a tertiary one. So I don't see why the DK X-Men Encyclopedia suddenly should be primary. Daranios (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Professional building diagrams don't usually include details like a Wolverine jumping around. And you fail to address the fact that the entry is purely descriptive and contains no shred of analysis or significance. No source has been presented that even calls this location important or significant outside in-universe sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying that "a Wolverine jumping around" immediately disqualifies a published book from being reliable smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's very clearly an independent reference work so I'm not really sure how to further prove my point past what I already said.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please avoid straw man arguments. I didn't stay that ""a Wolverine jumping around" immediately disqualifies a published book from being reliable". I said that "Professional building diagrams don't usually include details like a Wolverine jumping around". What disqualifies this source is that it contains only a description, and has no analysis of the significance and that it is effectively an in-universe compendium - it assumes things are important because they are important in-universe, not in the real world. We should not repeat that pattern. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination starts by telling us about a WP:PROD. This demonstrates blatant disruption because that process is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected."  As these nominations are being routinely opposed, such opposition ought to be expected now.  And now this further nomination violates WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE and WP:CIVIL.  See also WP:IGNORINGATD; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:IDHT; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - A room can be notable. Even a fictional place - if there are sources . Which so far, I do not see, except a picture book linked above. That is cute but about as helpful for establishing notability as for my cat. Which, arguably, is even cuter...sorry. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The cookie-cutter nomination asserts that there are no sources but provides no credible evidence. Per WP:NEXIST, "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search."  It seems apparent that this hasn't been done because satisfactory sources can easily be found.  For example, the book The Science of the X-Men which details "...the amazing robotics and holograms that make up the X-Men's amazing adaptive obstacle course known as the Danger Room." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the best you seem to find is a one-sentence mention in passing that is effectively a plot summary anyway. Still not a step up from a picture book discussed above. I am still not impressed, sorry - GizzyCatBella  🍁  01:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The link I provided is to the description of a book of 274 pages. As that book's focus is explaining the science associated with the topic, that's more than just plot.  Per WP:NEXIST and WP:OFFLINE, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep because there actually are secondary sources. In addition to the ones already mentioned, there are:
 * Gender, Feminism, and Heroism in Joss Whedon and John Cassaday’s Astonishing X-Men Comics gives, besides plot summary, quite a bit of analysis. Also is extensive!; The Ages of the X-Men: Essays on the Children of the Atom in Changing Times has a tiny bit of analysis; MTV calls it "mythic"; does anyone have access to HOLY CRIMINOLOGY, BATMAN! COMICS AND CONSTRUCTIONS OF CRIME AND JUSTICE or Animal Bodies and Artificial Bodies where it is also featured?; Also very interesting, but I don't know if this has been reviewed in any way: Cognitive Rehabilitation Specialization Portfolio.
 * There's also a number of secondary sources just giving a description or definition of the danger room, like The Marvel Comics Guide to New York City.
 * Do we need more? These were not difficult to find using Gscholar. So can only join Andrew in asking to really do a proper WP:BEFORE search before nominating for AfD and especially PROD! (Thanks to Toughpigs for detecting this.) Daranios (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you don't understand the difference between analysis and plot summary. Please quote as much as a single sentence form your first source that discusses the Danger Room outside of a plot summary. Where is that "quite a bit of analysis"? Every single sentence that mentions DR is pure plot summary and nothing but. Ditto for your second source, please quote that "tiny bit of analysis" - I don't see it, tiny or otherwise, it's all pure plit summary. Regarding a second source, so what? If an article called something "mythic" in passing, how does it relate to notability? Also, per WP:GOOGLEHITS, please don't throw out sources if you don't even have access to them - how do you know they even discuss this topic? So far zero sources that go beyond plot summary have been presented, and per NFICTION (and GNG), that's just not enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Every single sentence that mentions DR is pure plot summary"? What about:
 * Gender, Feminism, and…: "Finally, as opposed to Kitty’s and Emma’s constructions from a third wave feminist perspective, Danger seems to be constructed as a radical feminist character as viewed through a third wave feminist lens." "Danger is born from a literal revolution of consciousness; she becomes newly sentient and realizes that she is forced into a role that is not fulfilling and in which she cannot reach her potential." "Danger herself and her conflict with the X-Men are also similar to radical feminism through patriarchy, essentialism, and separatism. That Danger is a female character is crucial because there is no narrative reason that Danger needs to be female other than to align her with the feminism present in the rest of the text. Not only is Danger an original character, …"
 * The Ages of the X-Men: "While the X-Men have been trained in hand-to-hand combat, they are much less experienced in arenas of public relations, philosophy, and theology (the X-Men's technologically advanced combat training "Danger Room" appears not to have a "debate" setting)." - Granted, that one takes rephrasing to make it obvious how the presentation of the Danger Room tells us something about the X-Men (franchise).
 * 100 Things X-Men Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die: "There really was not anything like it in comics when it [the Danger Room] was introduced. ... The Danger Room would continue to be a mainstay of X-Men comics over the years, although as time went on, a little bit of the novelty wore off as the concept of a high-tech training cneter was now omnipresent in superheor comic books. ... However, it was not too late for the Danger Room to still surprise fans!..."
 * And real world effect rather than "analysis" per se: Cognitive Rehabilitation Specialization Portfolio: "The Danger Room in X-Men comics--much like Star Trek's concept of the Holodeck, a hologram grid room deck of their aircraft--is a simulation space engineered to imitate multiple scenarios. With modern technology, ... many of the simulations that we practice as counselors as role-plays, group therapies, one on one counseling, etc, can easily be transferred into computer programs. ... There are rudimentary frameworks that can develop into ideas like Cerebro and the Danger Room such as a new device being implemented in New Jersey knows as TACT." Ethics, Security, and the War Machine: The True Cost of the Military: "Hazma Shaban, technology writer for The Atlantic, describes one such war theatre simulator as “a primitive version of Star Trek’s Holodeck or the X-Men’s Danger Room”"
 * MTV: "The long familiar scenes of ... the X-Men training in the mythic Danger Room" (just like the quote from 100 Things X-Men Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die) is a secondary source that says exactly what User:Toughpigs used as one part of the deprodding rationale: that "the Danger Room is well known and viewed as an iconic part of the X-Men mythos".
 * We also do know that the two other sources I asked about actually dicuss the topic - if Google is to be trusted at all - because Google gives us preview sections here and here. These don't tell us the extent, or if they have analysis or not; but why shouldn't it be legitimate to ask if anyone had access here? I did not base my argumentation on those. WP:GOOGLEHITS also does not fit here. Daranios (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the sources provided above, which are enough to pass GNG. I also agree that the encyclopedias are secondary sources as they are published by third parties. They are also clearly not comic books. I view the encyclopedias as a good baseline for articles; if a character is not even worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia, they are likely not worthy of articles. Rhino131 (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm confused as to what anyone is seeing in the above sources that can constitute analysis. If your baseline for "significant coverage" is a single adjective, then all I can say is your standards are absolutely atrocious. On the topic of secondary encyclopedias, if they cannot be used to cite anything but the plot, then they are useless for the purpose of the encyclopedia and do not provide significant coverage. If it's interchangeable for a primary source, then there is no need for its inclusion in the article aside from linkdumping to make the topic appear more important. TTN (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, did you actually have a look at Gender, Feminism, and Heroism in Joss Whedon and John Cassaday’s Astonishing X-Men Comics (and take into account that this article is both about "Danger Room" the room and "Danger" the sentient entity)? Otherwise, can you point us to where the guidelines say that secondary/tertiary sources providing plot-summary are "useless for the purpose of the encyclopedia". I totally agree that a proper encyclopedic article should have more than plot summary. But I think that an article about a fictional entity without plot summary would be incomplete and a disservice to the reader. And I think the guidelines see it the same way. Daranios (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, you're including the personification. It's a character that exists independently of the concept of the room after its initial storyline, and it only exists in a singular comic line. That'd be line combining JARVIS and Vision together just because of what happens in the MCU. I wouldn't be against an attempt at making an article out of "Danger," but I don't think anything to do directly with the character has any relevance to the room other than poor article management.
 * If a source can be replaced by primary source with no information or context lost to it, that means the source does not provide any context of its own to add to the article. That means if cannot be said to provide significant coverage, which means it's useless in terms of meeting GNG. That is the case of the majority of these comics encyclopedias. If there is something that dubs itself an encyclopedia that actually provides its own unique commentary, I wouldn't dismiss it just because of the name, but someone would need to actually show it's something worthwhile. TTN (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely include the personification of the Danger Room (that apparently exists) as part of the overall article. They are meant to be the same entity. Notability of the humanoid version is still notability of the Danger Room as a whole.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if such a merger made sense, we still haven't proven the notability of the humanoid version. Despite all the comic cruft, until now, nobody has even tried to make an article about it... was an important/notable character like this really skipped? This is simply a red flag suggesting that the humanoid version of the room is even less notable than the room itself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, Piotrus, have you looked through the article as it is now? It says that it is also about "Danger" the character in the last sentence of the introductory part, and then about half the article (the sections Sentience and Powers and abilities) are about that character. We don't need to merge, the article already is about both. Which makes sense, if e.g. the sentence "the Danger Room developed self-awareness as "Danger"" is correct (which is supported by the secondary sources). If those two sides were not in the same article already, we should have discussed a merger here if we have potentially insufficient secondary sources for either one to combine to a worthwhile article, as preserving content by merging is preferred to deletion by Wikipedia's standards! For the importance of the character, the fact that it has a 17 page chapter called "Danger’s Radical Feminist Villainy" in Gender, Feminism, and... should go a long way to prove it. As it is, I think the secondary sources found so far together already allow for creation of a non-stubby article that does not violate WP:ALLPLOT by someone who is actually willing to improve the article as it is. I also think there are even more out there. If you don't believe that, just continue the searches suggested right there in the AfD notice (maybe adding "X-Men" to the search parameters for ease of use). Daranios (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see why a one-page-entry in a secondary source which is summarizing plot about a fictional element with numerous different appearances should not be "significant". I don't think that is in WP:GNG, we are now interpreting it. Of course there is another guideline which requires us to provide information beyond plot summary. So if we had only secondary source providing only plot summary, we should not have a standalone article. But if there are enough secondary sources, big or small, to allow us to fullfill WP:NOTPLOT and write more than "only a few sentences" or "half a paragraph or a definition of that topic", to quote WP:N, why should we not have an article? Daranios (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If the information extracted from the source is no different than what can be found in a primary source, what is that source offering? What is significant about that source? Each source needs to be judged both on its own inherent reliability and what is actually brings to the article. That something is reliable does not mean it is necessary if the context it provides is trivial or non-existent. If I can go through and replace it with primary sources, then there is literally no reason for it to have been there in the first place. The only benefit would be if the user does not know the origin of a particular in-universe fact but wants to otherwise use one of those encyclopedias as a temporary stop-gap until that is found. The only things that have any impact for fictional topics are sources providing real world information. I don't think that has been fulfilled for the primary topic, and I don't think a related, but otherwise separate topic should be even discussed in this context. TTN (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikpedia seems to prefer secondary sources over primary ones. Of course they are not needed in every case. But the nominator wants to have them, because the article is accused of being partially original research, and the topic of not meeting WP:GNG. So even if secondary sources only provides the same information than primary sources, they make sure that content is not OR (even if the same could often be assumed in good faith). And the notability guideline uses the existence of secondary sources as its main criterion (or in other words, if someone thought they could make money or gain a reputation by writing about the topic). Here specifically, however, plot summarys about the Danger Room/Danger as a whole seem to be important to me, because the topic has appeared in so many instances over a wide range of years and individual media. So to achieve the same quality of plot summary a secondary source can provide using primary sources only, many citations would be needed. And then we would probably be back at the accusation of OR. Daranios (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per comments above or merge to X-Men per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per argument made by ZXCVBNM and Andrew. Also, I should point out that Notability (fiction) is not a requirement or a guideline. It is an essay on notability, which I quote "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." This refutes part of the nominator's argument that it doesn't pass a "specific requirement" as there is currently no clear consensus as to how notability affects fictional topics in a specific and distinct way, and only the guidelines under Notability applies, which means the same as everything else. Haleth (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - in addition to the sources previously listed, there are several that go much further into detail about its creation by Lee & Kirby than the article currently does. I own them in print, and I apologize that I can't positively identify them at this moment. Probably Marvel Comics: The Untold Story and/or The Wonder Years. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep based on Piotrus' discounting a source because it shows "Wolverine jumping around." A clear case of IDONTLIKEIT. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - The first thing I would like to point out is that isn't wrong about the Danger Room being a substantial part of the X-Men mythos (on a sidenote, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES may not be a substantive argument for an AfD vote, but deprodders only have to consider whether the nomination is likely to be controversial) . But more importantly is the coverage and quotations provided by  above, which cover the topic from a real world perspective and even provide critical analysis. I have read through the counterarguments, but I just don't find any of them convincing. The sources were immediately accused of being all plot summary, which honestly happens every time someone provides coverage for a fictional element (because apparently WP:ALLPLOT = Any plot, even when there's an overwhelming consensus from everyone else that the sources are sufficient).  Dark  knight  2149  06:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per arguments made by Daranios and Andrew Davidson. /Julle (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2020 (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.