Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythology of Stargate (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 keep. Four keep votes to one weak delete, almost a week later (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Mythology of Stargate
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Suffers from issues related to WP:NOTPLOT; while it can source its information to some published sources, it fails to make a compelling argument as to why it has to be a standalone article and not just discussed in the main articles of each subseries. "Wikipedia treats creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." This is entirely plot and no context. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The topic may be notable. The execution begs for WP:TNT. It's 99% WP:FANCRUFTy plot summary. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that there is a problem with WP:NOTPLOT at the moment. But the topic is quite clearly notable based on the secondary sources present in the article, those listed in the previous deletion discussion, those listed by at Talk:Mythology of Stargate and this academic paper. These can be used to fix the problems. When they are used, this would be too large a section to conveniently fit into the articles of the series. Also there is a small amount of commentary present rather than "entirely plot" (e.g. from Beeler and Dickson). As this is not yet much, I also would have no great problem with a proper merge - which also should include a reasonable amount plot summary for understanding the commentary - even though I think that's the worse solution. Entire deletion is not warranted as some of the material here would be included in a "good" encyclopedic article in the end. Daranios (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I have dead tree resources on this topic. Will comment more over the weekend. The one issue, however, is "what is 'mythology' in this context?" Assuming we're going to allow the term to cover the show's milieu and associated fictional elements, much like a list of characters, is the starting point from which I'm going to examine sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So, I have three of the books listed in the article: Elrod, Storm, and Beeler's Reading Stargate. I also have Keith Topping, Beyond the Gate: The Unofficial and Unauthorized Guide to Stargate SG-1, Tolworth, Telos: 2002. 978-1903889503, which gives per-episode breakdowns including influences, reactions, tie ins, and other things that go far beyond simple plot summary. What does anyone need and/or want to know? Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * : How about adding a couple of real-world mythological influences from each of those books to the article? That would settle the discussion here (if it isn't already) and put the kybosh on any further AfD nominations. I'll add a bit from Scerri and that should sort it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Would love to if I had the time, but at this point I'm looking for an "ask" from a delete !voter that they state that, if sourced, would change their mind. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe ping them? Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I largely agree with Piotrus that some TNT would be handy in improving this article. The current text does a good job of concealing and ignoring the multiple reliable sources that it either cites in the text or lists as further reading. What the article should be doing is explaining, diagramming, constructing tables showing the many curious connections and correlations between Stargate's mythology and Earth's historically-constructed mythologies, including those of classical Greece and Rome, those of the ancient Egyptians, and those of the Aztecs. Some of these are detailed in "Mythology in Science Fiction" by Mariella Scerri and David Zammit in SFRA Review 316, Spring 2016, pages 15–21. Perhaps I'll add a bit of that to the article. As Daranios has noted above, several of the essays in Stepping through the Stargate (edited by P. N. Elrod and Roxanne Conrad, ISBN 978-1-9321-0032-7, Benbella Books, 2004), including Sue E. Linder-Linsley's essay "Exploring the archeology of Stargate SG-1" and the essays by Fran Terry, Sten Odenwald, and Bradley H. Sinor in the same collection all look to be highly informative on the subject. In short, this is a fascinating and clearly notable subject imprisoned in a massive straitjacket of NOTPLOT-y fancruft. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I've added some material from Scerri & Zammit; and some more from, another useful source; and . There seem to be many more such academic Reliable Sources out there, by the way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep as an overview anchor for this 17+ season spanning franchise. Yes, this is sub-par, but it's still way more preferable than the original dozens of stand-alone subarticles that once were there. If anything, Ori (Stargate) (which I started developing as a proof-of-concept for sources before working life abruptly reduced my wiki time) should be merged here. In addition to the sources mentioned above, I found the TV Zone specials (e.g.) as excellent development sources for the latter four seasons of SG-1; I still have them at home, but I lack the time and interest to develop this. – sgeureka t•c 09:23, 6 March 2023 (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.