Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of objects in Bionicle (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, default to keep. Wizardman 16:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

List of objects in Bionicle
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such, is just a repetition of plot points from the various Bionicle articles plot sections. It has shown no improvement since January, is duplicative, massively trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a trivial list of trivial elements that require little coverage outside of the main article (if at all). TTN (talk)
 * Keep per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). --Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Notice how you listed "notability" as a requirement? That's the issue, the article has established none. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Items that appear in this many publications are notable. The status of the article is not necessarily relevant as unquestionably it has Potential, not just current state.  --Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what is in those books, and if we have to guess, it is most likely more plot repetition. Verifiability needs to be confirmed, not guessed at, and nothing has been shown to verify this articles notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to guess one way or the other, but it is reasonable to believe that they can be used to improve the article accordingly. --Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not reasonable when the requirements for verifiability are that we here at AFD can actually see proof of real world notability. It is not reasonable to think that fan encyclopedias are filled with incisive creator commentary or something like that. And it's not how AFD works. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How AfD works is we need to be convinced that the article has no chance of ever being improved and must urgent be deleted. --Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as a list of notable game release of lego. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing this article with the List of Bionicle toys, which is a list of lego releases. And there are game articles, but this isn't that either. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see this one is a spinout of the other - one is 27kb and the other 29kb - thus utility and size length suggest they are better as separate. And I do recall a discussion on lists that their notability is better off in the main article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. "List of things" almost never has any referenceable factual claims worth merging anywhere, and this is a random grab bag of crap. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. nothing notable here that cannot be covered in the parent article. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In such cases we merge and redirect without deletion. --Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to merge unverifiable content, the only reasonable thing to do is delete. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is reason to redirect without deleting legitimate search terms that are not hoaxes or copy vios. --Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Setting up a redirect is fine, merging content with no regard to its worth is quite another. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If a redirect is okay, then that can be done without having an AfD. --Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep "Lists of things" is often the best compromise solution to dealing with objects in fictions and games. This sort of article is the sort that should be actively encouraged, though perhaps a better word than "objects" could be used. DGG (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep List of things (or minor characters or whatever) is generally a good way to organize things from notable fiction. This is that.  Good breakout article per WP:BREAKOUT. Hobit (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Eusebeus (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:VAGUEWAVE. --Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is rather straight forward --T-rex 23:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the sources cited inline in the article are reliable. The "encyclopedia" listed in the reference section but not cited in the article is published by the same company that the rest of the Bionicle media is published by: Scholastic Corporation, an independent publisher.  This offers a hint of possible sourcing (as we would presume it is not a work for hire, although it wouldn't take much for me to believe that it was).  However, the list is basically a list of game items: something frowned upon per WP:NOT.  I struggle to think of how this list could be construed as well sourced enough to overcome the spirit of WP:NOT.  It certainly isn't getting there by just citing an "encyclopedia" commissioned by the game maker.  there exists a GFDL compliant Bionicle Wiki which can accept this list and make better use of it than we can.  Protonk (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would the Bionicle wiki necessarily be able to do better than we can? I would think we have more editors.  --Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * they have a singular focus and no restrictions on gameguide and plot content (outside of copyvio content). they also don't demand our level of rigor for sources.  I haven't removed the sources in this list because they don't make terribly contentious claims but they are all forum or blog posts (WTE of the "encyclopedia") Protonk (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Britannica can probably cover certain articles better than we can (after all how many articles do we have that are basically repeats of the 11th edition of Britannica?), but that doesn't preclude us from covering them as well. --Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What is that supposed to mean? No where in my statement did I make some sort of statement implying that coverage in a wiki was exclusive to coverage here.  This article fails (borderline, admittedly) WP:NOT and all inline cited sources fail WP:RS.  I am suggesting that we transfer it to a wiki which does not have policies prohibiting this kind of content.  I personally don't care if it is transwikied or not but at least show me the respect of acknowledging I've made a statement.  If you didn't want an answer to this question, then just say "no matter what you say, I'll just make some comment about Brittanica" at the end.  If you did want an answer, then please respond with something germane.  Perhaps: "This list serves some navigational purpose to wikipedia that it cannot serve in the bionicle wiki, that would be a loss to the community not compensated by retention of the information" or "an article's existence on another wiki should not imperil its status here, perhaps we could edit this article so that it no longer violates WP:NOT" or "we have wikipedia projects and dedicated editors here, superior dedication elsewhere is not a deletion argument."  OR you could have just said "transwiking an article does not mean it should be deleted, we share content with several encyclopedias (including Britannica) this very moment" and not asked the question at all. Protonk (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm simply not convinced that the articles can't have additional inline citations. What you wrote at the end about wikiprojects and transwiking is basically what I was getting at.  Regarding the question about the 11th edition, probably not of immediate relevance here, but I honestly am curious how many of our articles do indeed base themselves off of it.  I'll see if I can find a category.  --Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rough guess: What links to the 11th ed. Guide to sourcing the 11th ed.  Bingo.  Count the transcluded links to the 1911 template.  Answer: a grawlixing lot. Protonk (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a hair under 13,000 pages in mainspace transclude the 1911 template. Protonk (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: One of the above participants in this discussion has been determined as a likely ban evading sock account. --Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - game/story guide. Has no notability out of universe, and is not really notable in universe either. WP:ITSCRUFT is not a reason to keep --T-rex 23:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor is it a reason to delete. --Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:51, 19 July 2008 (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.