Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumpgate (Babylon 5)


 * 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   merge to Jumpgate. a more babylon5 related merge target might be a better solution and is left to editorial discretion Spartaz Humbug! 03:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Jumpgate (Babylon 5)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article has been extant on Wikipedia for around six years without a single source. Since it's an article entirely composed of plot summary that tells about a particular piece of technology from a science fiction TV show, the likelihood that this article will ever have anything other than WP:PRIMARY sources is nil, and the article will thus never meet WP:V because of a lack of secondary coverage independent of sourcebooks or television episodes. The prod was removed because "This page is part of the WikiProject Babylon 5 and should not be deleted". — Chromancer  talk/cont 20:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Additional comments. Before you object, please refer to what Wikipedia is not. This entire article is and remains a plot summary. There is no treatment of this subject in secondary sources. — Chromancer  talk/cont 01:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I objected to this article being deleted, and as per the wiki proposed deletion rules it should not be deleted. What is the problem? Do we really wish to lose knowledge, however trivial? Do not delete this article, it was here earlier today when I wanted to find it, and if I had been a few days later it would of been gone, along with any useful links it contains. Sources? This is a Television show, the sources -should- be television episodes and movies. That is where all of the information about the show and its universe come from. ~Acridian 24.242.228.233 (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article has two third party reliable references now, so the nomination's reasoning is now invalid. Mathewignash (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Both of those sources are tertiary (encyclopedias, not reliable secondary coverage). Neither of them supports the vast amount of plot summary that exists in the article. What are you sourcing? This does not address any of the problems here. I would be amicable to a redirect, but this article still does not meet the WP:GNG. — Chromancer  talk/cont 01:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Added a third, unique independently published source. I've got a couple more B5 secondary sources packed away somewhere that I can't put my hands on immediately, all of which discuss the concept.  If the above objection (tertiary sources) is accepted as valid, then one must presume that those "tertiary" sources must be based on reliable secondary sources: the presence of an independently published tertiary source presumes the presence of appropriate secondary sources, which means the GNG is met. If the nominator would like to withdraw the nomination and collaboratively discuss how to appropriately trim the article, that is probably the best way forward... Jclemens (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have to disagree. Tertiary sources can be a compilation of commentary on primary sources. As is the reference you just added, which is entirely reliant on television episodes and creator commentary for its information (see WP:PRIMARY for a discussion of what constitutes a secondary source as distinct from a primary or tertiary source). Why the article "jumpgate" needs to exist when it's obvious that the technology involved could be dispensed with in a single-paragraph reference in a "Technology of Babylon 5" article is beyond me. Frankly, it's amazing to me that so many articles that only and entirely consist of in-universe plot summary are being kept on this basis, when it's obvious there's been no discussion of them in a mainstream or out-of-universe setting (See Interstellar Network News, Psi Corps, Grey Council, Black Star (Babylon 5), Shadow Planet Killer, Sun Hawk class gunship; all of these consist of plot summary and in-universe technical detail; none of them have reliable secondary sources). Is there any chance some of the editors would concede that there's no policy basis for keeping each individual plot summary articles and merge the 25+ individual ship/technology articles for Babylon 5 together?
 * Comment Actually WP:PRIMARY is does not rule out the use of tertiary or even primary sources: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully.", although secondary sources are preferred: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."Francis Bond (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. Right now the article entirely uses primary/tertiary sources to create a plot summary. There are no sources independent of the subject involved, except for one that's listed under references but has not contributed any material or quotations to the article (American Science Fiction TV: Star Trek, Stargate, and Beyond, which is a scholarly analysis of morality in SF TV shows; it does not, as far as I can tell, even mention the jumpgate technology). — Chromancer  talk/cont 15:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What we have right now is a series of articles appropriate for an in-universe fan wiki. Babylon 5 is a great article about a television series. These articles are fan material with no end in sight. — Chromancer  talk/cont 05:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet thought about the merits of "Jumpgate" specifically, but just so you know, the Babylon 5 wikiproject is working on consolidating some of those accessory articles. For example, I've been working on WikiProject Babylon 5/List of starships in Babylon 5, with the hope of redirecting a lot of those ship articles once it's ready for article space. We also redirected Minbari Warrior Caste to Minbari, and there is an active discussion about Interstellar Network News. In sum, I'd appreciate it if you didn't start mass-AfDing B5 articles while the project is actively working on the problem. --Fang Aili talk 06:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put one Babylon 5 article to AfD. I hardly think that's mass-AfDing. Since most of these articles have histories indicating they haven't been edited significantly in years (usually five or six plus), I had no reason to believe that any efforts were being made. I would be happy to assist in transferring and redirecting said articles. I'm not a big believer in WikiProjects, but it's obvious that no real progress is going to be made on this AfD, even without a source independent of the subject to be found, so any other way to make progress on bringing this to an encyclopedic level is good with me. — Chromancer  talk/cont 15:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge somewhere. It's a primary plot device in the B5 universe, so some information about it should exist somewhere in our set of B5 articles. Thus a redirect should exist as a viable search term. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. I'm looking for a reason to !vote keep, but I'm not finding one. There's no real-world notability about Babylon 5 jumpgates. Or, if there is, there are no sources to indicate as much. There's an entry on Babylon 5 at jumpgate which could be expanded a bit, or we can find another place to mention it. (A Technology of Babylon 5 article could be very interesting, especially since B5's creator JMS put such emphasis on trying to make things as scientifically plausible as possible.) I encourage further discussion on the matter, but at this time I must !vote to merge. --Fang Aili talk 21:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a Technology of Babylon 5 article has merit, but since some administrators only count noses and treat "merge" as something other than a "keep, and discuss a merge later outside the AfD process", I've ceased using that when a "keep" is justifiable based on sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge. After reading the various comments already posted, and doing some looking around on wikipedia, I found that the article under Hyperspace_(science_fiction)#Babylon_5 has most of the data there also. I propose that we merge the article under discussion with that article, and then create a redirect from this article to the Hyperspace_(science_fiction)#Babylon_5 entry. Acridian 24.242.228.233 (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Commnet the natural parent article is jumpgate though... 65.95.13.213 (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge: The subject of the article, a fictional technological concept, does not meet the general notability guideline (GNG) since all mentions about the jumpgate or jumpgates are either purely from a plot perspective mostly from tertiary and primary sources, trivial mentions or from unreliable sources with a search engine test, nothing to presume significant coverage. Checking the sources provided within the article, the first two are tertiary sources, which do not work well for notability purposes per the GNG, and I found that in two of them jumpgate is a trivial mention. In the second one, it is limited to a single mention in a single sentence and in the third one, the only secondary source, the term is not mentioned at all, instead using jump-points and again in a single sentence. And with no reception or significance about jumpgates either in the sources or the article, it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. Since the content is not supported with the references provided, it is also an unnecessary content fork. In order to generate consensus, I believe that a merge to jumpgate is an acceptable alternative to deletion, although I fail to see what could possibly be added to the content about Babylon 5 that is already there, particularly when nothing is actually referenced within the article in discussion. Jfgslo (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2011 (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.