Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs and machines in the Matrix series


 * 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 Move to incubator. It seems fairly clear that there is a consensus on this; as pointed out, when the sections of the article that are already duplicated elsewhere are removed, there is very little sourced material left. It would be better to move this out of mainspace until it can be fixed (which I am sure it can - though having survived in this state for so long may suggest otherwise). Black Kite (t) (c) 11:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

List of programs and machines in the Matrix series

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Uncited, trivial in universe list article. As much as I like the Matrix, this doesn't cut it. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —−  Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —−  Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —−  Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Despite the unusual name, this is simply a "list of characters" article limited to nonhumans for a major fictional franchise. As such, there's no reason other content can't be merged here and/or trivia be condensed out of it. Jclemens (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have failed to explain why it should be kept over the worst reason of them all. Lack of sources? Without sources how can we determine if this isn't full of original research. And keep in mind there is a List of minor characters in the Matrix series, majority of what's on this list, I don't see why they can't be on there. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Mainly a rehashing of the story, which should have already been given in the main article on the series. Borock (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - While this article desperately needs references (many of which could be easily pulled from the main articles that it links to), the overall concept of the list is valid. It doesn't duplicate List of minor characters in the Matrix series, and it clearly differentiates itself as a list of non-human minor characters.  The lists could be merged, but at that point would probably run into WP:LENGTH issues.  There are also plenty of sources available for this material, as many books have been written about the movie series and its story.  See .  Searching for any of these programs and machines in those books will yield results.  Also, on an unrelated topic, I'm thoroughly confused as to why someone would simultaneously nominate an article for .  If you believe the article is "rescue-able", then why would you nominate it for deletion instead of fixing it yourself?  Snotty Wong   gossip 20:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will agree that the title of the article is awkward. Are there any suggestions for a better one?  The only one I can come up with is List of non-human minor characters in the Matrix series, which is equally awkward.  Snotty Wong   speak 20:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this article could be rescue-able if it has sources, although I wasn't succesful in finding any, that doesn't mean anybody else couldn't. ;)−  Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominating an article for deletion is a very strange way to ask for help with finding sources. Also, I found sources in about 30 seconds.  Where were you looking?  Snotty Wong   comment 23:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I am a strange person. I have seen AFD's help before, thanks to that rescue thing. And I also tagged rescue because I thought maybe there would be people like you that would want this article to stay and maybe fix the article instead of moping about why it should stay. I already did a few changes on the article already. Now if you have sources, then by all means, put them down. Because googling sources is not my talent. And I was looking for third party sources not primary sources. − Jhenderson  7 7 7
 * Replying to the name changing comment of Snottywong. If this article is kept. I will purpose a name change for the article. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources I found are listed in my original !vote above. They are not primary sources.  Snotty Wong   converse 20:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw your sources. I never thought of going to Google books or thinking that as a reliable source. Sounds less third party. But hey, don't listen to me. You know what you are doing. ;}− Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notice how many of the characters listed have their own well referenced articles? They get ample coverage.   D r e a m Focus  21:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Them having their own articles could be argued as redundant. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  21:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Notice how none of those sources are in this article? — Mike  Allen   21:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. But there are the least of the worries since they already have their own articles. The main worry is the ones that don't have articles. They are the most essential of this article. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  21:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See the five books that I listed in my !vote above. They could all be used as sources for the more minor characters which don't have their own articles.  Some of the really minor characters (i.e. some of the characters which only appear in video games) may need to be deleted from the article if sources can't be found for them, but that is no reason to delete the entire article.  Snotty Wong   soliloquize 23:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sources and real world details could be added. I'm not going to say Delete because the article could be improved through regular editing. Real world details (which includes sources) should definitely be added. This is nothing but plot information. We have Wikia for that. — Mike  Allen   21:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I regret putting this at AFD because deleting this is not really what I want. For example some machines like the Sentinels need to be introduced somewhere. But what I really want is this be more like a Wikipedia article. −  Jhenderson  7 7 7
 * Delete: This might seem harsh, but this article has been tagged as being original research and also written in a primarily in-universe style for more than two years and nobody has lifted a finger to help it. Wikipedia isn't a random collection of unsourced information. If it couldn't be fixed in two years, I don't see why we have to wait forever for it to be fixed, just because it's really a character article. Too many times now I have seen AfDs with people advocating keep because there really are sources out there, and gosh we just need to add them and we'll be fine! Either add them by the time this AfD expires or delete the dang thing. It's hard its two years in the spotlight, and failed. Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (3rd nomination) anyone? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So your argument for deletion is that cleanup tags have persisted on the article for too long? What exactly is the threshold when persistent cleanup tags require the deletion of the article?  1 year?  2 years?  See WP:IMPERFECT.  Snotty Wong   yak 23:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the threshold of tolerance for articles that have persisted without sources, as original research and written in in-universe style? Or should we just accept all junk that exists because 100 years from now someone will get around to adding sources? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Hammersoft. This is why Wikipedia is not taken seriously. — Mike  Allen   01:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Incubate: The article as it stands now fails general notablity guidelines and does not warrant inclusion in article space. However this does not mean that the article is incapable of meeting this criteria as Snottywong has pointed out. I propose the article be moved to the article incubator until it is ready to be reincluded in article space.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I do like that idea. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with incubation. — Mike  Allen   01:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep because I find the topic to be a valid grouping of elements. There is bound to be redundancy between certain articles, and I believe it is okay here. The article does focus too much on in-universe detail, but there is room for improvement. The Matrix franchise, especially the films, is very thoroughly covered, and it should be possible to balance in-universe and out-of-universe detail. There ought to be plenty of production information, not to mention critical analysis by academics. I suspect, though, that the video game programs and machines are not as well-covered, and I would support a more concise description of them. The way to approach this article is through others. For example, Agent Smith is also lacking a balance of content, and if it were a better article, than there could be a summary section of it in this list. At the same time, sections like the one about the Trainman could be improved. For example, one result at Google Scholar says, "Further, the Trainman, introduced in Revolutions, furthers the Africanist narrative of the film in that he runs an 'underground railroad,' which is used to transport rogue programs from the central core of the Matrix." There are also citations about his similarity to Charon. Basically, the Matrix articles as a set could use some loving from an editor willing to put in the time to find resources and boldly reform the content to strike the balance that's needed on Wikipedia. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ...A balance that has been asked for over two years, with nobody doing anything about it. Again, how long are we to keep unreferenced junk lying around? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If the topic is considered notable, then the presence of unreferenced content does not justify deletion of the article itself. The unreferenced content within, per WP:BURDEN, can be pared down, especially interpretative passages. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The unreferenced content, if removed, would bring this article to...one sentence. It's been that way ever since it was created 4.5 years ago. For half of that time, it's been tagged as original research and in-universe. I'm all for improving articles. But, when an article has languished for this long, the timer has expired. If someone wants to port this to user space, or the incubator, or wherever it is they want to work on it, fine. But to keep it in mainspace is absurd at this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Could it not be a list of the non-human roles and the actors who played or voiced them? Perhaps with a one-sentence description for each? I specified interpretative passages because we cannot go beyond a basic description of a character when we reference only the primary source. Primary sources are largely used here, despite actual presence of citations. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It could be, but isn't. It hasn't for 4.5 years. See User:TriiipleThreat's Incubate proposal. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I already incubated it. Although if this article does stay, I will probably just request speedy deletion on it. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to our esteemed colleague Jhenderson777, he should have waited for the outcome of the AFD first, then moved the entire article to the incubator if that is what is decided so that the revision history and talk page would also be kept.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to Triiiple Threat, (although I agree with you that I rushed it) it doesn't matter anyways, the article is going to stay with the result of keep or no consensus. Although I don't regret bringing this to AFD because that's sometimes what needs to be done for people to realize that an article needs work and due to editors like User:Erik, that's exactly what's been done. So this AFD was not a bad thing like User:Snottywong was feeling like it was. Now my reasoning for already putting it as a incubator was because I was concerned that if the result was more on the delete side, it could have been deleted before saved. Just because three people voted that incubation was a good idea didn't mean that was the final result. But as I said it doesn't matter because I feel that this article is going to stay, so I am going to speedy delete the article incubator with no problem. By the way, thank you for all your votes and concerns everybody that wrote here. You all made valid points. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the sections for the Trainman, Rama-Kandra, Kamala, and Sati. I also reduced the content of the video game characters to be more discriminate. A good way to find references is to use Google Book Search or Google Scholar Search, e.g. matrix wachowski trainman. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I rewrote the section about the Merovingian and Seraph. I also removed the original-research "Exiles" section and merged the subsections to "Programs" under "Films". Some other sections were shortened, too. The references in the article also cover some of the other characters, such as the Oracle. The Keymaker in particular has a reasonable article whose contents could be summarized for this list. The references themselves can be explored through Google Books Search or Amazon.com (the "Look Inside" feature). Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would keep this, or perhaps merge it somewhere. Incubating it, and growing it, would also be options. Babying is better than deleting or negating something. I actually found something that I was looking for here, and I want other people to be able to do the same. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.251.196 (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't really want the information deleted either. It being rdirected/merged, incubated or fixed is more of I what I had in mind even more than deleting. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: largely unsourced in-universe WP:FANCRUFT. Also given the theme of these movies, "programs and machines" are a fairly ubiquitous component of them (a bit like a List of fish in Finding Nemo). A non-list article on the use of the theme of artificial constructs in these movies, that would "provide non-fictional perspective" (per inuniverse) on them, might be a worthy inclusion, but not this list. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all of the characters with third-party sources already have their own article, like Merovingian (The Matrix) and The Oracle (The Matrix). The remainder have no sources and have stayed that way for many years. I can only draw the conclusion that it's impossible to WP:verify notability of all these programs and machines or that the list has become so indiscriminate as to cover things that really don't belong in Wikipedia. Leave the template and the notable characters, but delete this list. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2010 (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.