Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobol (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 no consensus despite multiple relists. Before renominating, interested editors should discuss whether a merger to a summary article for the mythology of the show can be a better alternative to outright deletion per WP:ATD-M.  So Why  07:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Kobol
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Simply put, not a notable fictional entity. This is a plot summary, and all sources I see are plot summaries as well. PS. The box to prior AfD discussion seems borked here, the relevant link would be Articles for deletion/Cylon War but that was a procedural keep due to mass nomination. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as WP:GNG; this is significantly more notable than the other articles in the bulk nomination IMO. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. I explained why this is not notable (no sources discussing this concept except primary/plot summary sources). Please provide links to sources discussing this outside primary/plot summary context if you want to argue this meets GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I can look for references, I suspect they will be in the context of articles discussing BSG in general, rather than specifically about Kobol. Would that be sufficient? Power~enwiki (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends. The problem is that while we can find some mentions in passing, plot summaries ("Kobol was a planet...") are not good enough. We need to show significance outside BG universe. Ex. "Kobol, inspired by X mythology, has been used as a plot device of the Y form, and inspired A and B." And this has to be worth more than one sentence or otherwise, like Eastern Alliance, the best we can do is to merge the one sentence of real world significance ("EA was an allegory for the Soviet Union") to the main BG article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that in the context of science fiction Battlestar Galactica is BSG, while BG are the Bene Gesserit from Dune (franchise). Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  02:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  02:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment the obvious difference is that Kobol is relevant in both series of Battlestar, not just the first one. may be the type of reference you're looking for. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, BG is used for this series, I am sure. Anyway, User:Power~enwiki, I'd invite you back to look at the sources we found (or pretty much lack of them), in light of your earlier comments. Do you still think this topic deserves a stand-alone article instead of 2-3 sentence mention in the main article on BG(BSG)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep "Battlestar Gallactica" and Mormon Theology (snippet view only), Research Note: Rejecting Monotheism? Polytheism, Pluralism, and Battlestar Galactica (again, no full text) both appear to discuss Kobol in terms of LDS mythology appropriated for BSG. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither of those even mentions the word Kobol in the available 'snippets'. Please quote at least a sentence showing non-plot discussion of the subject. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Update. I was able to access both sources through my university. In the 1st one, Kobol is discussed on second page of this 5-page article in two sentences. First one is a citation from the Mormon scripture on Kolob, second one states that "It appears that both the Lords of Kobol and Kolob have ordained the same governing structure for mankind." That's pretty much is it. So this is just a mention in passing, no in-depth treatment here. In the 2nd one, we get several sentences on the 1st page, no coverage besides that. The sentences read: "Thehumans had a pantheon of deities, the Lords of Kobol, which seemed to matchelements of Mormon theology and suggest the plurality of God", "He has, however, developed the mythology of the Lords of Kobol into apolytheistic system drawn primarily from Greco-Roman mythology. ", and finally "hese deities, like the ancient Greek and Roman pantheons,are related through various social and/or kinship structures and reside (orresided) together in one realm—Kobol. (It is unclear in the series where theGods currently reside, as Kobol, a planet, was discovered by the humancolonists in ruins.) " I don't think those three sentences show notability of Kobol. But I can certainly see how an entire paragraph if not more in the BG article could discuss the religion/mythology of the series, as inspired by Mormon/etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding those. No, those aren't bare mentions. If I wanted bare mentions, there area a bazillion of them in episode reviews for Kobol's Last Gleaming.  While I wish each were longer, they do seem to substantially say exactly what I inferred from the snippet views.  My Keep opinion stands, although if we're going to make a consolidated 'mythology of BSG' article, I would support an appropriate (i.e., non-AfD) merge discussion. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh. First, the entire real world impact of Kobol in BSG can be summed up in 1-2 sentences (it has been inspired by Mormon religion/mythology). That's it. There's nothing more. This doesn't need a dedicated article. All the unreferenced, in-universe fancruft here is good for is for WP:TNTing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note I agree with the nominator that Kobolds in Gaming has nothing to do with the fictional planet from BSG. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. Seems like you are down to straw man arguments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think he's simply registering his agreement that the "prior AfD discussions" box at the top lists AfDs that are irrelevant to this one. Mz7 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I disagree with you often enough,, that I go out of my way to say when I think you've got it right. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet GNG. I agree with Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus It needs sources discussing this outside primary/plot summary context and fan stuff. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note I agree with the nominator, Kobolds (little Goblin creatures) in D&D - nothing to do with the planet in BSG! Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to encourage a consensus to form.
 * For what it's worth, I am unable to get at the full text of either article that Google Scholar noted as relevant with the tools at my disposal, which are not inconsequential, but neither journal seems to have full text available from either university library to which I have access. GNG cannot be not met when we have articles we cannot get at--per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You cannot assume that the sources are relevant. If you can access them and they show relevance, say so. Otherwise all you are saying "this page I cannot see except heading/etc. seems to contain that word and was found through a search engine". Well, though, but the fact that this word is mentioned somewhere in the source doesn't mean anything for notability. You have no sources, still. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Do be sure and read WP:PAPERONLY and WP:SOURCEACCESS sometime. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant, as I am not saying there are no sources. There may be sources, but so far neither you nor nobody else have found them, and the burden of proof is on those wishing to keep said content. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an invalid argument. Either find and present them, at which point we agree we have them, or this topic is unsourced and thus fails WP:V/WP:GNG. Those are binary outcomes, there is no middle ground. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (My need to reply mooted by you finding access to the sources and reporting on them, above) Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Except I didn't find sources. I accessed what you claimed to be sources and found that they offer only trivial, in passing, coverage of this topic, and as such are not sources. There are no sources showing notability of this concept. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I might support a merge/rename to a new Mythology of Battlestar Galactica page. This content has enough material to be covered beyond the main Battlestar Galactica page, but I see no existing merge targets. I see coverage in respect to it being a MacGuffin, and in its relation to Mormon theology, but everything else I find is in-universe relevance. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2017 (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.