Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omnitrix


 * 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 some/split some/merge some into List of characters in Ben 10 and other articles if appropriate. I'll put the Afd-mergeto and Afd-mergefrom notices on that page and the Omnitrix page and leave the rest to you long-winded lunatics steadfast editors. :-) Krakatoa  Katie  10:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Omnitrix

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

After looking through this article, it appears as though it is in severe breach of WP:FICTION, as it contains no real world analysis, no outside sources aside from the episodes, and is instead a giant list of fictional characters on the fictional cartoon show Ben 10. If there is a Ben 10 wiki, I recommend it be transferred there, but until then, I nominate for deletion based on WP:FORUM (as the talk page has degenerated into three pages of forum style chat), WP:FICTION, and WP:NOTABILITY. Fancruft and Listcruft would come into effect here as well. Ravenmasterq 05:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also it's original research, since every reference is to an episode. A Ben10 wiki would be best. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, there IS a Ben 10 wikia. It's pretty small though, as it only has 33 articles at last check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.115.125.183 (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I missed that one, I guess, among all the others. Good call.Ravenmasterq 05:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, references to easily observed material in an episode of a television show or other work isn't original research. Why?  Because there's a difference between saying something happened and saying something means X. FrozenPurpleCube 15:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with your observation on OR FrozenPurpleCube; simply because every refernce is to an episode doesn't place the page under the original research umbrella since the material comes from a third party, a view who watched the show but wasn't involved in its creation or production. You have captured the essence of that perfectly, "there's a difference between saying something happened and saying something means X." TomStar81 (Talk) 02:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of coverage from independent sources.  Transwiki would also be appropriate if a wiki is found Corpx 07:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep ; It's nothing more than a typical List of Characters with a bit of information about the device itself. Lists of characters are commonplace and rarely have real-world analysis, yet are still accepted. By the way, some references come from non-episode sources, namely information given by [www.ben10toys.net Ben 10's toymakers] and a bit from [www.bandai.com/Ben10 interviews with the show's writers].
 * I think that the real reason behind this AFD is that the article's content does not particularly match its title. While the titular object may not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the content itself is acceptable. If it makes it any better, it could be renamed "List of Omnitrix characters" or something of the sort.  You Can '  t See Me!  08:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm sorry, but the first is not a reason to delete an article, it's a reason to inform the people on the talk page that Wikipedia is not a forum and suggest they try elsewhere. If they refuse to move, then maybe the page can be protected, but deleting the main article?  That's not a valid deletion reason when the subject of the article can be considered quite valid. As for that, the Omnitrix is clearly a primary part of the show (note how the first movie was titled) as such describing it is important to adequately covering the show.  It can be adequately referenced with the episodes, but if you really need third-party sources try  and .  Heck, see the bottom of this page . I wonder why somebody's asking for further exploration of that whole issue...could it be *important* to the series?  Maybe.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well, it is central to the entire show. That's not to say some things could be reworked. And any talk page can degenerate into a forum. That's not a vaild reason. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs } 15:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good reason either, and talk pages aren't supposed to be forums.Ravenmasterq 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said anything hinting towards WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Where did you get that from? Please, tell me, I'd like to know. And talk pages are not part of deletion criteria. If so, prove it. Pacific Coast Highway { talk •  contribs } 02:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Yeah just go ahead and delete EVERYTHING important! The omnitrix is a very complicated piece of fiction and without a full article the how is ANYONE gonna awnser the questions that they don't pay attention to the show enough to have awnsered? -King SweaterHead 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you just defined WP:ILIKEIT perfectly.Ravenmasterq 19:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that. Sweaterhead's comment is also a good example of WP:EFFORT and WP:USEFUL. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 22:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as fancruft, indiscriminate, nearly anal-retentive list. Fails WP:FICTION, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V. Note to closing admin: All "keep" votes seem to be WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL or WP:EFFORT. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 0

 * Keep, not fancrufty really, just needs trimming. I guess that the show does qualify as a decent source. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you mind not attacking people's positions, but rather discussing them? Seriously, this is a significant part of the series, such that it is essential to cover it in order to be comprehensive.  The extent of the coverage may be debated, but it is more than zero.  You can dismiss that as WP:ILIKEIT if you want, but that doesn't make you correct.  I see it as something we need to cover if we're going to have an article on this show.  Which I assume isn't in question?  FrozenPurpleCube 19:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that if you read the requirements for WP:FICTION you wil understand why the article needs to be deleted. Everything the Hammer said also applies, but start with WP:FICTION, and then you can see where we're coming from.Ravenmasterq 21:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't understand why this article needs to be deleted. It's neither a copyright violation, a hoax, or anything that's unmaintainable.  It's not vandalism or any other kind of problem.  This is a specific subject, and is  not really different from any of the other articles on Wikipedia.  So I'd say there's no *need* for deletion here.  It's a valid subject to cover, as it's a significant part of a television show that merits coverage.  In effect, it's the basic plot device of the show. (this is quite clearly stated  The most you might convince me of is that it should be merged with the show's main article, but wait, this is actually a fairly complex subject so...it's appropriate to spin it off.   Maybe merge with a list of characters articles if you want.  But delete?  No, that's not the right way to deal with it.  I'm afraid you're the one who is so focused on a guideline that you can't see where I'm coming from, which is the position that the page you're reading is misguided.  You may think you're improving Wikipedia.  I think you're obsessing on details and rules, but not seeing the bigger picture.  Perhaps it's WP:FICTION that's broken and that needs to be deleted.  Or at least, modified to recognize that it doesn't cover everything.  Oh wait, it already says that at the top.  Sorry, but I'm afraid Common sense in this case will trump your objection.  At least for me.  Care to convince me why this subject should not be covered on Wikipedia without relying on a guideline?  FrozenPurpleCube 21:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't need any guideline to know this isn't encyclopedic and belongs on a fan site, but that's how things work around here. Guidelines allow us to have nice, logical discussions with anarchy.  But common sense tells me that we don't need 58 kilobytes of information on a fictional device from a cartoon series with no connection to the outside world.  I would suggest moving the article here: http://ben10.wikia.com/wiki/Ben_10_Planet  That makes sense to me.21:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Ravenmasterq 21:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I don't need any guidelines to know this is encyclopedic, and belongs on Wikipedia, at least in some form. Guidelines are not what allow us to have nice, logical discussions without anarchy(that is done by using such things as civility and consideration for other editor's positions), but rather are occasionally are helpful in shaping discussions. They are not, however, the be-all, end-all, of discussions. There is a reason why WP:BURO and WP:IAR exists, and another reason why you should make your arguments not based on strict interpretations of guidelines, but rather by convincing people of the validity of your position using reasoning, not just declaring things must be so because somebody else wrote something. And I'm sorry, but while I could go along with a trimming of the page's contents, that isn't the same as deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 21:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The page does seem to violate WP:NOT in my opinion. It also fails WP:RS (as none of the sources are independent, being either episodes of the show or toy profiles) and WP:FICTION (as it's written in-universe). The level of detail is way too high, thus creating a high amount of fancruft. Passages such as "It's been shown that each alien tends to have its own personality, which somewhat intermingles with Ben whenever he becomes them." and "However, its paranoid creator went somewhat overboard in designing it: not only does it destroy itself, but the resulting explosion will create an energy ripple that will disintegrate most of the universe along with it." smack of WP:OR and WP:WEASEL to me. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 22:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indiscriminate info?  FAQ?  No.  Plot Summary?  Maybe, but I'm not convinced that's a problem warranting deletion.  Lyrics?  Nope.  Statistics?  Nope.  News Report?  Nope.  Trivia?  Not as a whole.  Could be a reason to clean up though since I do feel there's a bit of improvement to this page.  So I'm assuming you mean Plot Summary as a problem.  I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that's not a convincing reason to delete, as that's more a clean-up issue than a deletion one.  This isn't "Plot of Ben 10 after all" .  Reliable Sources?  Not a big issue.  You can check the episodes for sources, or CN's website. Independent sources would only be needed if there's something contested.  I don't see that as inherent to the concept of this page.  Written in-universe?  Not a deletion concern, but an editing one.  This isn't "Manual of the Omnitrix" after all.  Seriously, everything that concerns you can be fixed with a proper rewrite of the page, not a deletion.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to give an example though, take the creator of the Omnitrix is pretty confirming of that second line you quoted.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't see any weasel words. Could you perhaps be just a little more specific? Besides, wouldn't it be easier to simply edit out a few weasel words rather than to argue over the deletion of the entire article? The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 23:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ravenmaster, you say that this isn't encyclopedic, yet I don't see how you came to this conclusion. Perhaps if you explained this better, we could come to an agreement as to whether to delete the article, keep it, or some other solution. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 22:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Having said all that, I fail to see a reason to delete the Omnitrix article. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 21:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Before we go around deleting articles, perhaps we should take a look at WHY they should be deleted. I happened to find a list of deletion reasons at WP:DEL. After reviewing these reasons, I see no reason to delete the Omnitrix article. Allow me to present my case:
 * Advertising or other spam without relevant content: Obviously not the case.
 * Content not suitable for an encyclopedia: This actually depends on what people consider "suitable." However, let me present my opinion. We already have an article for a televison show called Ben 10. A vital part of the show is the Omnitrix; many episodes revolve around the Omnitrix, and without it we would just be watching a fairly average family having a fairly average summer vacation. If the show is considered suitable, then something this important to the show should also be suitable (especially since there's so much to be said about it).
 * Copyright infringement: How could we possibly be violating any copyright laws?
 * Hoax articles: Again, obviously not the case.
 * Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic: Not an image in the first place.
 * Inappropriate user pages: Not a user page.
 * Inflammatory redirects: Not a redirect.
 * Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources: The Omnitrix is a piece of fictional technology created for the show Ben 10. If the show cannot be considered a reliable source of information for the Omnitrix, then what can?
 * All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed: Has anyone even tried yet? Take a look at the bottom of the page. True, a lot of the references are individual episodes (which, as I said above, should be more than reliable enough), but there is also information from Bandai, and it seems they know what they're talking about.
 * Newly-coined words or terms: I certainly don't see any. Besides, even if there are any, they can easily be removed or replaced.
 * Overcategorization: Again, doesn't appear to be the case and can easily be changed if it is.
 * Patent nonsense or gibberish: Still not the case.
 * Redundant templates: Not a template.
 * Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline: I'm assuming this is the WP:FICTION thing you keep talking about (if I'm wrong, please correct me). If you want to use this argument, then why not delete all Ben 10-related articles, including the Ben 10 article itself! In fact, there could be a lot of shows that could probably be deleted from Wikipedia using this argument! As I said before, has anyone even TRIED looking for any "reliable secondary sources" yet? Instead of just trying to delete it, maybe you could try improving the article so that it wouldn't have to be deleted. (Also, as FrozenPurpleCube just pointed out, at the top of the page it says that "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.")
 * Vandalism that is not correctable: STILL not the case.
 * Keep. I'm not crazy about the dearth of outside sources, and I think it doesn't meet all the requirements of the WP:FICTION guidelines, but there's way too much volume to merge this back into the Ben 10 article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Split and Merge. After having a while to think about it, I've changed my vote. The technical details about the device can be placed into Ben 10, while the aliens can potentially be their own stand-alone List of Characters, which seems to be immune to every rule listed above. If not, the article can be made into an article on the main character, Ben Tennyson, along with info merged in from List of characters in Ben 10. The aliens are his alter-egos after all, so I'm sure that could work. Whatever the case, I'm sure that the article will soon be targeted by this "Fair-Use Overuse" movement which has been cutting images from lists, so images won't be a problem for long; I'd do that right now if not for a conflict of interest.  You Can '  t See Me!  23:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, Ben Tennyson is part of List of characters in Ben 10. As subsections go "Aliens of the Omnitrix" isn't a bad one in this case, and as such, I have no objection to this proposed solution. FrozenPurpleCube 23:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I think things are fine as they are, but if we have to compromise than this seems like the best course of action. We could just incorporate the technical info about the Omnitrix into the Omnitrix's section of the Ben 10 article, and then we could move the rest of the Omnitrix page to "List of Omnitrix aliens" or something like that. After all, most of the article is about the aliens. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 23:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support If it works, why not. I don't see why a compromise wouldn't work. Some stuff does need to be condensed a bit. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs } 02:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I noticed a bit of Canvassing going on and I must strongly advise everybody to not try to sway the discussion by seeking out the input of other editors in a non-neutral fashion.  If you do feel that others should be notified, it is important to do so in a way that is completely above-board and not designed to just get those who might support your argument to participate.  This applies to all sides of the discussion.  Thanks in advance for respecting this concern!   FrozenPurpleCube 02:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And if we do it, we're fan boys. Funny, isn't it. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs } 02:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, don't do it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said I did. I already know not to. How come everyone is misreading what I'm saying today? Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs } 03:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno, maybe it's the phases of the moon. FrozenPurpleCube 03:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology for Canvassing as shown above; I'll admit my wrong doings and take full responsibility, and I hope my actions do not harm the credibility of Ten Pound Hammer, who is a good person.Ravenmasterq 03:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I hope you refrain from further actions like that in the future. There are appropriate ways to seek further input, but they do require being careful to remain neutral. FrozenPurpleCube 03:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Trim & merge - Seems to be an important (even central) plot element to the series in which it appears. At the same time, while the main information should be preserved, there are already concerns that the article is too long.  It seems to be longer than the article for any of the actual characters in the series.  Should be therefore trimmed significantly and merged into the article about the series.  From what little I know of the show, it wouldn't be much without this device anyway.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  04:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Split/Merge, device details could be trimmed and placed in main while aliens could be in a list article. Either way, it doesn't require deletion. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewrite to remove in-universe style fancruft and then merge to List of characters in Ben 10. Groupthink 07:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The (near?) total reliance on primary sources is deeply concerning. Jakew 10:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Question I noticed several users (perhaps only Ravenmasterq and Ten Pound Hammer) accusing the Omnitrix article of containing fancruft, but I just looked over the article and don't see anything that could be labeled as fancruft. Remember that the Omnitrix is a complex piece of technology and so is a lot to be said about it. I don't think saying there is fancruft in the article it is a valid argument unless you can give us some examples from the article of what you consider fancruft. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 03:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Omnitrix" is a complex piece of FICTIONAL technology, and the minutiae about it are only notable to fans... ergo, fancruft. Groupthink 03:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as fancruft goes, I consider it nothing more than a dismissive opinion that doesn't offer any real substantive argument, but instead attempts to reduce things to a simple derogatory term. As far as reasons to delete go, I consider it highly troubling and borderline insulting.  As I've said many times, I really don't think it's appropriate to use in any form.  It really just tends to cloud issues and increase hurt feelings. FrozenPurpleCube 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "The 'Omnitrix' is a complex piece of FICTIONAL technology, and the minutiae about it are only notable to fans... ergo, fancruft." That can be said about many pieces of fiction, such as kekkei genkai from Naruto or the Halos from the Halo series, yet there are extensive articles on both subjects (I'm well aware that this may qualify as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but just let me finish and you'll see my point). On top of that, there may be people who never watch the show and decide to come here for information about it. Those people may find the Omnitrix article very informative, therefore NOT fancruft. After all, I'm not a fan of the Halo series, but I came here once because I wanted to learn more about it (I found the Halo article very informative). Oh, and before I forget, there isn't much "minutiae" here: everything in the article is simply another vital aspect of the Omnitrix or an example of that aspect. Maybe the sections for the aliens can get overly detailed, but this IS the main article to resort to for information on their species, so where else are we supposed to put it? As Mister Manticore said, calling something fancruft simply "attempts to reduce things to a simple derogatory term." The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I still don't see any examples. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 17:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1
Keep - A lot of information, pictures, and references (even if most/all of them are episodes). Also, if you look at the history there is already over 400 edits to it this month (=O!!!!)! ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 17:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd note indicates this person is the brother of another editor here.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, so we've run WP:FICTION through the ringer a couple times; debated the finer merits of Fancruft and what they mean, visited WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS a time or two, but ignored is perhaps the one driving nail into the coffin for this article. And that, is notability. There are four subnotes to the general notability guideline for Wikipedia, and indeed, for general reference as well. Omnitrix fails all of them. The general requirement is: 'A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'. Let's go over the detailed requirements as well. I'll give you a chance to digest all that, but basically, the first detailed requirement for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources. Now, I won't argue that Omnitrix does have a lot of sources. 44 of them! It certainly isn't a poorly sourced article, however, the sources aren't reliable. They are not independent of the topic (as all are either from the TV show, or from Bandai), and therefore they do not have a Neutral point of view. Obviously, the TV show isn't independent of itself, and Bandai, who licenses the show, isn't independent of it either. Therefore, all 44 sources fail independent source guidelines, and fail neutral point of view. Therefore, the first of WP:N has been failed as well.
 * '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.'
 * Sources in wikipedia are defined as 'authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.'
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.
 * "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

Also, notability requires objective evidence. There is none here. While it seems that everyone involved in this argument voting keep disagrees thoroughly with WP:FICTION, there still isn't any real world analysis to this article. It is completely self contained, and has no bearing on the world outside of the Ben 10 cartoon. Therefore, it fails WP:N, and it needs to be deleted.Ravenmasterq 19:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything you're complaining about suggests the article needs to be rewritten, not deleted. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Furthermore, your assertions about the sources are just ridiculous. A primary (or secondary) source for a television show does not fail NPOV, because it is not pushing a point of view to begin. This is not like a living person boasting about themselves, this is sources describing an aspect of the show. There is no point of view for them to be biased about, short of "man Powers Rangers sucks compared to this" or some other such nonsense. And finally, rules are not there to be followed to the letter, and you should know perfectly well that the main plot device in a series is notable. Use some common sense when applying the rules, because you're way too focused on them at the moment. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I must disagree with your application of the notability standard, as it's overlooking a very salient fact, this television show is notable. (I see absolutely no disputation of that, but if you do find yourself wondering, it's not hard to check for yourself).  Therefore, it behooves us to cover elements within the show, especially elements as significant as the Omnitrix.  Should it be covered in a sub-article of its own, or in the main article?  I think there could be points either way.  It's certainly a distinct enough concept that it would at least be able to sustain a section, if not more.  Finally, if you really need a reason try: "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. " .  This is something where you need to be using common sense.  I'm not seeing it.  Instead, I'm seeing an excessive focus on the rules to the point where you're violating WP:BURO.  Really, you're not even focusing on the actual subject, but instead on the rules.  I'm sorry, but that's not going to persuade me when the rules themselves are to be ignored where appropriate.  This is one of those cases.  Can you make a case as to how it's not appropriate?  FrozenPurpleCube 20:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No one has said anything yet about this piece of fictional technologies importance in the real world. So, I am focusing on the subject, which is, how does this relate to us?  I wouldn't need guidelines to know that the Omnitrix has no bearing on the real world.  If anyone could find independent analysis, comparison to real world technologies, or something relevant to something outside the Ben 10 universe, there wouldn't be a problem with the article.  Instead, it is an entirely self referencial page, and it needs to be deleted.  I would not object to a small section about the device in the Ben 10 article, but not a 50+kilobyte page dedicated to it.Ravenmasterq 20:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not just dedicated to it, but other characters in the show as a result of it. As for the page, it's not entirely self-referenced, as the data is drawn not only from the show, but secondary sources such as its toy line and promotional material by the toy-making company. It does not need to be deleted, you just think it does. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that toys and promotional materials from a toy franchise are reliable, secondary sources suitable for use in an encyclopaedia? Jakew 20:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I might be misdefining the term. Regardless, they're reliable in either case. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to focus on any impact with the real world, as that's not the purpose of an article on the Omnitrix, which is to describe it as it exists in a work of fiction. That's my goal with any page like this. You may have another. You're welcome to your own goals, in so far as I don't object to supplementing the primary information with secondary material, but I don't see how they warrant deletion. If you believe less coverage is appropriate, then AFD is not the place for this discussion, but rather the talk page where alternatives such as merging content and page editing can be constructively discussed. Believe it or not, deletion *isn't* the only tool in the box. You may also wish to read the comment below. I think it provides a reasonable perspective as well. FrozenPurpleCube 21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

New perspective. Lately I've been thinking, and I believe I've found a new way of looking at both the article and the guidelines. (Yes, I said guidelines, not rules. Learn the difference.) Let's say, hypothetically, that there weren't articles on the Omnitrix and List of characters in Ben 10 and Ben 10: Secret of the Omnitrix and so on. Instead, suppose we had one HUGE article with all this information on it. That article would incorporate plenty of reliable secondary sources and have real world content. Although the article would be unrealistically long, all the major arguments you have used towards the Omnitrix's deletion wouldn't apply. Therefore, when applying such guidelines to articles that are a part of a collection of articles (such as my previous examples, kekkei genkai and the Halos), I'd recommend applying the guidelines to the collection as a whole, and not on the individual articles. The Omnitrix may not have any "reliable secondary sources" or a connection to the real world, but the show it is a part of does. If the show is considered notable, then such a major aspect/plot device of the show should be as well. That is common sense. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 21:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's consider your argument. First, content should be primarily based upon secondary sources. Therefore, there should be no substantial content for which such sources cannot be found. Therefore this article shouldn't exist, or should at most be a short paragraph in the main article. Problem solved! Jakew 21:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Content? Does this mean you're applying the guidelines (which I will say again are NOT rules) to the content? Perhaps you should read WP:NNC. Also, let me remind everyone what is stated at the top of WP:FICTION and WP:NOTABILITY: "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 22:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability guidelines are not the only guidelines, and in fact they have a very close relationship to the core guidelines and policies. If a subject is notable then reliable third-party sources will have noted it. And if third-party sources have noted a subject then an article can be written that, by citing these sources, conforms to WP:V. If a subject fails notability or related pages, it usually fails verifiability, since that states "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Jakew 22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is not a major concern here, this is a television program broadcast nationwide. Might even be DVDs available.  If not, they should be sooner or later.  That makes for a reliable, published source.  It makes for a completely acceptable source to me, as the first place you should go for information about what happens in a work of fiction is the work of fiction.  Can you come up with an actual problem, or are you just going to rely on what the "rules" say?  If so, I'd say that the problem is the way the rules are written, especially on WP:V.  Perhaps they need a rewrite to cover works of fiction more adequately.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Trying to combine everything would be disasterous. True, what we currently have violates (or so some think) some of Wikipedia's guidelines. However, placing everything in one article would breach WP:SIZE; that's not just a violation of a guideline, but a hazard to the article itself. If somebody should happen to edit the whole page (as in, not a section), he or she runs the risk that the article will get cut near the bottom. Omnitrix breaches WP:SIZE as it is, so it's best not to push it farther. I tend to be a mergist Wikipedian, by the way, so to say no to a merge is a rarity in my Wikipedia experience.  You Can ' t Review Me!!! 23:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem 1: article can't exist without violating policies & guidelines. Problem 2: article can't be merged in full without being too long. Solution: either harshly cut most of the content before merging, or delete the article. Jakew 23:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we all have a different idea of what common sense is.Ravenmasterq 23:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it is often "uncommon" . FrozenPurpleCube 00:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing as Ravenmaster. To me, common sense says that if an article exists about a work of fiction (such as many video games and television programs), then major aspects of the fictional world should be discussed in detail. If any of these aspects is too complex to be listed elsewhere without making the article rediculously large, or is simply too vital to the plot, then it deserves its own article. I think that the Omnitrix meets both of these requirements but, as I said, this is simply what common sense tells me, so you may not agree.
 * On a different note, I think I have been sightly misinterpereted. When I said to imagine all of the Ben 10-related articles as one huge article, I was not suggesting that we should take this course of action. I was simply trying to put things into perspective: Try applying the guidelines to the entirety of a work of fiction rather than focusing on a specific aspect of it.
 * I'd also like to agree with some of the things said here recently. First of all, the Omnitrix exists only within the Ben 10 universe, so if the show itself is not considered a reliable source of information, then nothing can be. Also, it is easy to verify the information on the article: Either go to Bandai's site or, best of all, watch the show. The first season is out on DVD already, and it looks like the second will be coming out in October. Therefore, using WP:V as an argument towards deleting the Omnitrix simply doesn't work. Just about anyone can verify this stuff.
 * Before closing, I'd just like to say that not everything has to follow the policies and guidelines to the letter. This article may not be perfect, but I hardly think its imperfections warrant deletion. Heavy editing, maybe, but not deletion. As has been said before, it seems several people here are getting so caught up in the details that they can't see the big picture. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 00:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we're really starting to dig deep into the different ideas here, and this is a great page that exemplifies different wiki philosophies, and we've managed to cover a lot of ground. In regards to Hungry, I can see from where you are coming from, and you make a valid argument.  I'm just concerned that the entire article is relying on only the TV show for information about it.  Granted, the NYT isn't going to cover the finer points of alien transformation in Ben 10, and it never will.  Neither will the LA Times, the Denver Post, or any other newspaper, magazine, et cetera.  Whether or not they should cover it is an entirely different bag of kittens.  My viewpoint stems from concern over the content.  There isn't enough relevance to allow for this entire huge article to stick around.  I won't say that Ben 10 isn't relevant, it's obviously doing well, what with the live action and full length animated feature coming out.  But this one device, as important to the plot as it may be, isn't important in the real world.  Keep a bit about it on the Ben 10 page, or on Ben's article.  But so much in depth coverage of each alien form is unnecessary.  Go power up the Ben 10 wiki, or start a new one.  That would be an excellent place for this information.Ravenmasterq 01:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I beleive I'm also beginning to see where you're coming from, Ravenmaster, and this most recent argument is perhaps the best one you've given so far. I'll agree that some of the information in the article is a little too in-depth at times, and perhaps such detail is more appropriate on the Ben 10 wiki. However, I still disagree with your methods of getting your point across. Nominating the Omnitrix for deletion was a rather hasty move. If you have problems with the content of an article, I'd recommend bringing up your concerns on the talk page first. This way users who frequent the page will have ample warning and an opportunity to correct any errors in the article. In the case of the Omnitrix, we could have transferred most of the information to the Ben 10 wiki, included some basic information about the Omnitrix into the Ben 10 article, and, after some heavy trimming, renamed the article to reflect what was left: a list of the alien forms available to Ben. I'd recommend trying this in the future before trying to delete an article. That being said, it seems all that is left is for us to come to an agreement. I'll do my part to make the article more acceptable without directly eliminating any information, just so long as the article isn't outright deleted. (But first I want to finish some "renovations" I'm making on the Golden Sun wiki, Golden Sun Universe, and there may not be much left for me to do here by the time I'm done.) I probably won't have anything more to say here, so this is Hungry Paperweight, signing off (okay, so I'm not really signing out, but it sounded cool). The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 01:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, good luck with your project, and I won't make a lengthy response. If this does fail deletion, I hope we can work together to trim up the article and find a good home for a merge.  But, my opinions stand, and thank you for a nice civil debate in this quite long chain.Ravenmasterq 03:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Zfish9 01:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)okay, i have one question, why do you need real life analysis for SOMETHING IN FICITON? if we need it in all fiction, there would be NO FICTION AT ALL!!! thus, a good portion of the articles would be deleted. honestly, you need real life stuff for FICTION?
 * Question  I just came across this discussion because my son was researching the Omnitrix for a project.  I don't see how the Omnitrix is different than the Tardis except there is no information as to how the Ben 10 producers came up with the idea.  If information from interviews with producers and the creators were included, would that make it an acceptable entry? I'm not trying to say that because there's a Tardis article there has to be an Omnitrix article, I'm just trying to understand the difference.Dlws92 03:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)dlws92
 * I think the primary difference between TARDIS and the Omnitrix articles is the way they are presented. While the Omnitirix article is all sourced from the Ben 10 TV show, TARDIS has sources from a veritable plethora of outside, reliable sources, such as School of Infomatics, University of Edinburgh, and  Police Signal Box: A 100 Year History, University of Strathclyde.  That's why it made featured article as well.  I'm not saying Omnitrix couldn't be featured one day, but right now, it relies totally on the show itself, instead of relying on outside critique of it.Ravenmasterq 03:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's see, the Tardis has been around for a few decades. The Omnitrix?  Only exist for a few years.  Heck, there's probably more lost Doctor Who Content than there is Ben 10 content.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Since the Omnitrix itself is the main focus of the entire show's plotline (a boy finds an alien device that gives him superpowers) I see no reason that the device itself should be without it's own article. The only way I could see this page getting deleted is if it were made into a redirect to "List of Omnitrix aliens" or something. Even then, it's just a matter of semantics about the title. The content itself is notable enough, regardless of where the source material came from. Just because most of the info on the omnitrix is from the show doesn't make it fancruft. Most of the info on the TARDIS came from the show. Ben 10 has already been made into movies, has a sucessful toy line, and ratings that warrant it's own template. I see no reason why the central pplot device in the show should be excluded more than any other articles. Next thing you'll be wanting is to merge the characters and villains together into one article too. Then it'll be made into a section on the main page of the show. Then it keeps getting smaller and smaller as if the internet has some finite storage space that is being taken up by info on Heatblast's homeworld. Sheesh. --Piemanmoo 09:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because there is space on the internet, doesn't mean we have to use it. Just like there is space on wikipedia, it doesn't mean we have to use it all.  We're a lot better off if we don't.Ravenmasterq 20:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ravenmasterq's careful analysis. Lack of independent and secondary sources is fatal for an encyclopedia article, but typical of nonencyclopedic fancruft.  The arguments for keep display a fundamentally flawed understanding of WP:RS (reliable, third-party published sources) and WP:OR (Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.).  Quale 14:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (sigh) I was hoping I wouldn't have too say anything more, but I was just plain shocked by what you said, Quale. "A fundamentally flawed understanding"? In case you haven't noticed, many people here have different interperetations of what these guidelines and policies mean. Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't mean that they're wrong. I'd say everyone's interperetations are equally valid (even if I don't agree with them all). Allow me to demonstrate. You quoted part of WP:RS, so I will do the same: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Since the Omnitrix exists only within the Ben 10 universe, the show itself is the most trustworthy and authoritative source of information for the Omnitrix. Also, we've already discussed WP:OR, and as Mister Manticore so very well said: "there's a difference between saying something happened and saying something means X." Original research is when somebody comes to their own conclusions based on the facts given to them, a.k.a. "saying something means X." What we have on the Omnitrix article is simply a collection of information gathered from Bandai and the show itself, a.k.a. "saying something happened." As for fancruft, I already asked for an example a couple of times. If you can't give an example of fancruft in the Omnitrix article, then I refuse to acknowledge it as a valid argument. As for the lack of independent and secondary sources, I have the ultimate argument to counter that, but I'm trying to put it off for as long as I can (kinda like a secret weapon). In the end, it may turn out that we are all just plain stubborn and unwilling to give in to the other side. I am willing to compromise (such as transferring info to the Ben 10 wiki and heavy trimming) but unwilling to let the Omnitrix be outright deleted. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 17:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Be shocked all you like, but your reply demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding itself. What part of third-party published sources do you not understand?  WP:RS isn't a restaurant menu, where you get to pick which parts you like and ignore the ones you don't.  Clearly different subjects will be able to meet sourcing requirements to different degrees of rigor, but this page barely meets the most feeble requirement.  It has sources, but they are all primary and not in the least bit independent of the subject itself.  As far as WP:OR goes, I'll just say that I think your interpretation is wrong there as well.  A 50K page detailing something happened goes directly to WP:PLOT, the WP:NOT prohibition against plot summaries.  At the size of this page it's a particularly absurd and egregious example, as this is simply a fancrufty plot summary in different guise.  (This page is almost entirely fancruft—I challenge you to find something non-crufty on this page that doesn't belong in the parent article Ben 10 instead.)  See Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables for an extensive discussion of an article about an infinitely more culturally important and relevant topic that was deleted for these reasons.  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad keep reason, but WP:ANINFINITELYMOREENCYCLOPEDICARTICLEWASDELETED is an excellent delete reason, especially when that more encyclopedic article's deletion was appropriate.  Basically your argument is you only want to pay attention to the parts of WP:RS and WP:OR that suit you, you don't like the requirements in WP:FICT which several keep arguers have admitted this article fails so you'll ignore that guideline too, and you ignore the precedents of WP:PLOT as well, as you have a different interpretation.  Those advocating delete haven't given just a single argument, but rather at least three (and maybe as many as six depending on how you count), and I don't think keep advocates have effectively answered any of them.  Rebutting all the deletion arguments seems completely out of reach for this article as it doesn't meet any of the relevant guidelines.  Under the circumstances, I can see why WP:IAR would seem an attractive keep argument.  Quale 17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Plot of Les Miserables being deleted didn't lead to Jean Valjean being deleted though. Or Javert. I wonder why.  Perhaps nobody noticed. For that matter, there's a long Synopsis in Les Misérables and a longer one in Les Misérables (musical).  The real problem with your argument though, is that it relies on an interpretation of the rules, rather than an argument based upon the actual subject.  Certainly this content could be improved.  Perhaps significantly rewritten, but there is no deletion necessary, as the intent is clearly meant to be as encyclopedic as an article on Luke Skywalker or the One Ring.  Which I notice has no references.  It'll probably need to be tagged.  But do you think people would support deleting them?   FrozenPurpleCube 19:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as far as it goes, effectively everything in this article would belong in the Ben 10 one, but for clarity and length, which are matters of convenience, not content, it goes elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 19:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that my arguments don't depend on the subject is false: one of my arguments is the subject lacks independent, third-party sources, which speaks directly to the subject. The rest of your arguments (it's too long to merge, etc., etc.) were raised and rejected in the Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables discussion.  Everything of value in this article does belong in Ben 10, so merge it.  If it's too long to fit, that's probably because it lacks any secondary sources whatsoever, like the entirety of the page under discussion.  While the Plot of Les Mis comparison is appropriate, I think any comparison of Omnitrix to Luke Skywalker is laughable. Quale 22:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Except, all of those requirements are based on the rules, not the subject itself. Big difference to me. You haven't said why any of those things are needed for this article to be encyclopedic. A quick examination of the prior discussion might tell you that those rules are not being met with widespread agreement.  Perhaps it's because there's been no focus on why those rules are needed?  Maybe so.  Maybe those rules aren't that accepted because they're just not applicable to the situation.  Besides, if you're now saying this should be merged, even in part, then why does your initial comment above say delete?  You may wish to modify it. FrozenPurpleCube 23:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And as far as it goes, within Ben 10, I consider the Omnitrix no different from Luke Skywalker or the One Ring. Or Jean Valjean and Javert for that matter.  It is one of the most important parts of the series, and no coverage of it is obviously not acceptable.  Thus the question isn't one of deletion outright, but trimming.  If you wish to participate in that discussion, it'll proceed on the talk page.

FrozenPurpleCube 23:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, if you're looking for a page that's actually similar to the Plot of Les, try List of Ben 10 episodes. FrozenPurpleCube 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that List of Ben 10 episodes meets the guidelines of WP:PLOT in a way that Omnitrix doesn't. (In particular, notice how "A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic" applies to one of those pages but not the other.)  I see that as a straightforward, common sense application of the guideline, and I think that most other Wikipedia editors who understand the guidelines would agree.  Since you don't see any important difference between Luke Skywalker and Omnitrix, it doesn't surprise me that you don't see it that way. Quale 00:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct about one thing, Quale: "List of Ben 10 episodes meets the guidelines of WP:PLOT in a way that the Omnitrix doesn't." That is because WP:PLOT doesn't really apply to the Omnitrix in the first place. There are no plot summaries (if there are please point them out for me). There may be bits and pieces of the plots of individual episodes or the overall storyline(s), but this is only to give readers a better understanding of the Omntirix and the alien forms stored within it. Even if WP:PLOT does apply here, I think the Omnitrix meets the requirements for exemption. Then again, that may be what you are trying to say, but just in case it isn't, I've said it. As for the Omnitrix-Skywalker comparison, I think it is accurate. It simply isn't the best comparison for the job. I think comparing the Omnitrix to the One Ring, or my earlier comparison to the Halos, would be better. All three are inanimate objects that serve as the centerpiece of their respective fictional universes. Luke Skywalker happens to be the protagonist of the original Star Wars trilogy, therefore he is also central to the Star Wars universe. Because of this, they should be discussed in as much detail as possible, either here or on an appropriate wiki. Comparing the Omnitrix to the plot of Les Mis, however, is poor at best (I am not saying that the plot is unimportant, only that it isn't the same). But that is just my opinion, and I do not expect you to agree. You have your opinion and, although I do not understand it nor agree with it, I respect it. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 02:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I think List of Ben 10 episodes is a better and more appropriate article than the Plot summary of Les Mis, even though they're the most comparable in nature, far more so than the Omnitrix is to either the Plot summary or the list of episodes. This is due to the fact that an episode of a television show isn't necessarily part of a singular story line, but in a way a discreet work of fiction on its own (though a clear exception would be soap operas). However, that's got nothing to do with concepts within a work of fiction, which is a different question entirely. Why you even brought it up, I still don't fathom. There are much more accurate examples to use. An article like Luke Skywalker, the One Ring or even Harry Potter's Invisibility Cloak is similar. A clear plot summary? It's not the same kind of thing. FrozenPurpleCube 03:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Zfish9 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC) okay, i say we KEEP the article. if you need a real life analysis, remember, IT'S FICTION! here's the definition from dictionary.com if you need it.
 * First of all, I will admit that I don't understand all of the guidelines, policies, etc. inside and out. I'm simply trying to explain why the article shouldn't be deleted. Heavily edited, I can understand, but it is better to fix the problems than to simply get rid of them. Also, this is what I meant by bringing up WP:IAR: I will admit that there are very few secondary sources and no third-party sources. But if we waited for some independent source to review the Omnitrix and all its aliens, then we would be in for quite a long wait. The Omnitrix and its alien forms are vital to the show, therefore they must be covered in at least some detail. Therefore, our only option is to ignore the lack of sources and instead work with what we have available. I will not deny that the article contains more information than may be necessary (it already has a tag for being too long), but again, that calls for editing, not deletion. As for fancruft-or-not, the information of the Omnitrix itself can probably be trimmed and merged into the parent article. The aliens themselves, however, are basically a list of characters and deserve their own article (unless a page is made for Ben Tennyson himself, in which case they can be listed there). Although the aliens may be overly-detailed at times, such as information on their homeworld and civilizations, a good portion of the information is neccesary in order to understand the aliens; calling it "a fancrufty plot summary" is simply a way of telling us that you know little of the show in the first place. Speaking of which, I'd hardly call it a plot summary. It may contain aspects of the plots of certain episodes or seasons, but only when it provides information on or relates to the Omnitrix. Furthermore, WP:NOT is not a prohibition on plot summaries. It simply states that a plot summary on its own is not enough, however: "A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." This brings us to another point you made: Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables. In case you never noticed, WP:OTHERSTUFF works both ways. We can't justify keeping an article just because a similar article exists, but in the same way we can't justify deleting an article just because a similar (or in this case superior) article was deleted. In fact, as Mister Manticore pointed out, the plot was preserved here, so I hardly think that it's a good argument either way. Finally, I am not ignoring WP:FICT. I am simply trying to put it into perspective. Earlier I gave an example of a hypothetical mega-article containing all information Wikipedia currently has regarding Ben 10. From what I understand of the guideline, this mega-article would meet WP:FICT's requirements. Once again, Mister Manticore has worded things perfectly: "effectively everything in this article would belong in the Ben 10 one, but for clarity and length, which are matters of convenience, not content, it goes elsewhere." I believe that covers everything you find wrong with my argument, so I will say again: This article calls for editing, not deletion. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 19:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I explained precisely why OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't cut both ways here: when a much superior article is deleted that has some important similarities to the article under discussion, that precedent is important. Everything from this page that doesn't fit in the Ben 10 article should be deleted, for clarity and length. Are you seriously arguing that this page has more value than the Les Mis plot summary page?  That page was merged.  Apparently editors of cartoon pages lack the skill in merging that literature editors display.  The Les Mis plot page was enormous, and the valuable parts were merged, and the rest tossed.  The same should happen here.   It isn't harder to merge the encyclopedic parts of this page to Ben 10 than it was to merge the plot summary into Les Misèrables.  Manticore's arguments don't say it perfectly, because the exact same arguments were used in the Les Mis plot summary discussion and rejected.  Some of the people commenting here (this comment is not directed at you, but others) have made a career of opining on AFDs but spent precious little effort actually improving any articles.  That's a shame.  Quale 22:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And some people here would do well to remember to comment on the content, not the contributor. That's also a shame. Perhaps a greater one.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a greater shame than wasting all your energy on AFD when you could be contributing some time and expertise to other parts of Wikipedia, but strangely I'm not at all surprised you don't agree. Quale 00:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What waste? AFD accomplishes many things, whether it's keeping an article, deleting it, redirecting it, or merging it. In fact, I've even convinced people to change their minds in a discussion. Including even the nominator of an article from time to time. I think I've accomplished quite enough on AFD that calling my time here a waste represents a highly mistaken point of view on your part.  It's certainly not shared by everybody.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think by "waste" he means complaining about the problem and not doing anything to solve it. Although I agree that it is a shame that some people do that, I have a greater shame to share with you all: people who try to delete articles rather than improve them. People who spend the majority of their time in AFD may have a variety of reasons. A valid reason is to expose flaws in the article and provide solutions on how to fix the article. This is not a waste. However, by trying to delete an article, you are telling people that its flaws warrant deletion, not fixing. If that isn't backwards thinking, I don't know what is. That is why I brought up Deletion Policy. Before deleting an article, we should do what we can to try and improve it. The Omnitrix may contain a lot of "fancruft", but the majority of it is useful information for understanding the Omnitrix and, to a lesser extent, the show in general. Deleting it will be getting rid of a lot of worthwhile information (at least relative to the show). Spending time complaining rather than acting may be a shame, but trying to cover up a problem rather than fixing it is, in my opinion, a far greater shame. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 16:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, waste for me implies the time isn't well-spent, but then, the waste could, as you say, be blamed on the folks pushing for deletion instead of improvement. Given that Wikipedia is a work in progress with thousands upon thousands of articles, any edit to improve an article, even a succession of edits to make an article a featured one, is like picking grains of sand up to clean the beach.  Any work you do anywhere doesn't mean that much in the great scheme of things, there's always more for tomorrow.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS gives as an example of what not to include in an discussion: "Delete we do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this." The comparison may not be perfect, but the same principals apply. Just because a superior article was deleted does not mean that this article should be as well. That's right, I said superior. I know next to nothing about Les Mis, but I have admitted (twice now) that a summary of its plot is more important than details of the Omnitrix. My point is not that the Omnitrix article should be kept in its entirety; in fact, I am aware that some of the information is unnecessary and I am more than willing to compromise. My point is that it does not deserve to be deleted. So far every argument in favor of its deletion have left me convinced of only one thing: the Omnitrix has much room for improvement. Rather than deleting the whole article, we should do what we can to make it more acceptable by Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and whatever. In fact, Wikipedia's deletion policy should make this very clear. I forget where I read this, but I believe one of Wikipedia's policy pages said something along the lines of "deletion should only be used when all other options have been exhausted." Therefore, rather than deleting the Omnitrix, we should focus more on improving it so that it doesn't have to be deleted. As it currently stands, deletion would do more harm than good. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

fic•tion –noun 1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form. 2.	works of this class, as novels or short stories. 3.	something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story. 4.	the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining. 5.	an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation. 6.	Law. an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist, made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a rule of law. aslo this was in the wikipedia deletion process page: "...However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zfish9 (talk • contribs) 19:46, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:FICT for Wikipedia's guidelines on articles on fiction. Quale 22:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Trim, Split, and Merge. Throughout the course of this discussion, many flaws in the article have been brought to my attention. Although I am still opposed to the deletion of the Omnitrix, I no longer believe that it should be kept as-is as well. First of all, there is a Ben 10 wiki, where the more detailed information can be placed. Secondly, the article already suffers from being far too long. Therefore, it would make more sense to trim the article down to the more vital information rather than delete the entire article. Next, the article is basically split into two parts: the Omnitrix itself (descrtiption and design) and the alien forms stored in it. The information on the Omnitrix itself can be merged into its parent article while the aliens can stand alone as their own list of characters (just like List of characters in Ben 10 and List of villains in Ben 10). To make a long story short, the article should be edited, not deleted. Although it is hardly a picture-perfect article right now, deleting it is even worse than not fixing it at all. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that this discussion page is now longer than the article itself. We've managed some good debating here!Ravenmasterq 04:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that is the point. We debate to reach a consensus. This just happened to be a long one. I've seen longer though. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs } 04:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wanted to comment on that as well. A major problem with the Omnitrix page is that it is too big, yet in talking about it we've created an even bigger page. Kind of ironic, isn't it? The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 16:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think most everybody's glad to do some cleanup, the page could use a reworking. But then, I'll say the same of featured articles. FrozenPurpleCube 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

 * Keep and improve. I added a ref to back up my position. - Peregrine Fisher 08:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is a plot summary, that is not not verifiable to independent, secondary sources, and fails the fiction notability guideline's requirement for real-world sources.  Further, I don't think this a situation that ignore all rules would apply to, since I don't see how a huge crufty article like this improves Wikipedia.  Encylopedic articles on fiction should comment on the work and the impact of the work, not obsess over about specific plot points of a fictional work in an in-universe style. --Phirazo 16:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Any particular in-universe problems you can identify so that they can be fixed? I disagree with the first precept, but I do feel improved writing is a worthwhile goal. FrozenPurpleCube 17:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Again with WP:PLOT. I thought we discussed this already. How is it a plot summary? Stop accusing it of being fancruft, too. I am beginning to identify what could be considered fancruft, but I'd say that this only makes up about 1/3 of the article AT MOST (probably closer to 1/4). Also, the more you mention WP:FICT, the more I will raise up two points.


 * 1) Try applying this guideline to the Ben 10-related articles as a whole, including Ben 10 itself, and not to specific articles. Ben 10 as a whole does meet WP:FICT (or at least as I understand it). The Omnitrix article, as it currently is, is too complex to be explained as simply as section of the Ben 10 article, which is why it has its own article.
 * 2) WP:FICT says: "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." What may be common sense to one person may seem completely rediculous to another, but here is what common sense tells me: The Omnitrix is vital to the show. In fact, without the Omnitrix, there would be no Ben 10. Therefore, it must be covered in at least some detail. Otherwise, we might as well not mention the show, either, and I think I've already made it clear that Ben 10 is notable enough.
 * I will not deny that there is an extreme lack in independant sources, but that is why I brought up WP:IAR in the first place. IAR says: "If the rules prevent you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore them." Since we lack independant sources for information on the Omnitrix, we should ignore this lack (for the time being, at least) and instead work with what we have. If we don't, then we won't have any information on the Omnitrix, which is simply unacceptable. Also, what sources we do have are easily verifiable, so unless you're still hung up on the independant sources problem, I do not see how WP:V is a problem. Having said that, I do not deny that there are many problems with the Omnitrix article, but fixing these problems through editing is much better than trying to ignore them through deletion. If we deleted articles just because of a few technicalities, then Wikipedia would be quite empty. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 18:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The need for objective, independent, secondary sourcing is not a "technicality", WP:FICT says it should be treated with common sense AND the occasional exception (not OR the occasional exception), and ignore all rules does not mean disregard the rules lightly/flippantly/on a whim, because Wikipedia is not an anarchy. We need to delete articles that are not well-sourced because it's better to have a smaller but more credible encyclopedia than a massive behemoth that completely lacks credibility. Groupthink 19:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I didn't explain myself as clearly as I thought I had. Or I've simply been misunderstood. Either way, allow me to try again. First of all, I thought carefully before bringing up WP:IAR in the first place, and I may have been a little hasty when I did bring it up. However, I think that this kind of thing is the reason IAR was created in the first place. As I've said several times before, the Omnitrix is vital to Ben 10. If we are going to include Ben 10 in Wikipedia, then we should also include the Omnitrix. However, there are no independant sources to turn to, which is why WP:FICT and WP:NOTABILITY get in the way. That is where IAR comes in: the lack of independant sources gets in the way of putting any information about the Omnitrix on Wikipedia. That is why I believe we should ignore this lack of sources and instead work with what we have. If you cannot see things from my point of view, then perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
 * On another note, you seem to think that the Omnitrix article is not well-sourced. However, let's use a little common sense here. If the show itself is not the most reliable and credible source of information, then nothing is. I also have to disagree with your opinion on deletion in general. Rather than deleting articles that are not well-sourced, we should first try to find an appropriate source. Personally, I doubt anyone here has even bothered to look (shamefully, I have to include myself). Deletion should be treated as the last resort, not the first.
 * Finally, I was wondering if you could clarify the following statement: "WP:FICT says it should be treated with common sense AND the occasional exception (not OR the occasional exception)". To me, it sounds like you are agreeing with me, although I find that unlikely. I already explained what common sense is telling me, so I will not repeat myself. From my point of view, the reason WP:FICT and other guidelines say this is similar to the reason WP:IAR exists: Sometimes the guidelines simply don't apply (the occasional exception) or can only be applied in certain ways (common sense). Need I bring my hypothetical mega-article out again? The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 21:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * HungryPaperweight, I think you're missing the point somewhat here. WP:FICTION and WP:NOTABILITY are not there to "get in the way". Together with other policies and guidelines, they effectively encapsulate what it means to be encyclopaedic. And if you find that an article violates several of these, that's a pretty good indicator that it doesn't belong.
 * I also think that you're missing your point in your discussion of 'reliable and credible' sources of information. As an example, let's use geodes as an analogy for Omnitrix. What you're arguing, in effect, is that we should use geodes themselves as sources. But the problem there is that we can only give a superficial description. We can say that they're pretty, we could even describe some common shapes and colours, but we can't say anything meaningful about them. To do so, we have to rely on secondary sources: authors who have investigated the internal structure, reasoned about their formation, and so on. This is what makes an encyclopaedia article possible. Similarly, with Omnitrix the primary sources are inadequate for scholarly, encyclopaedic treatment of the subject. They limit us to a purely descriptive rearrangement of the show's plot, and nothing else is possible without a) secondary sources, or b) original research.
 * None of this means that the article is bad, just that the content is not appropriate for this particular encyclopaedia. Indeed, I can imagine that this article could be published elsewhere, in a reliable source and with some additional commentary, analysis, and comparison with real-world concepts. Once published, the article would be a very good source that we could then use, and instantly we'd find that in-universe issues, verifiability, and notability would become far less of a problem ("so-and-so remark that Omnitrix are 'of particular interest' in the field of fictional technologies, because of..."). Jakew 21:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said that WP:FICT and WP:NOTABILITY exist to get in the way. (Please forgive me if that is how I sounded. I only created my account shortly before I discovered this conversation, and as I said earlier, I do not completely understand all of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.) I simply said that their requirement for independant sources happens to get in the way in this case. Also, I would hardly call this article a "rearrangement of the show's plot," although I would appreciate an example if you can find one. Also, please stop bringing up verifiability. Just about anyone can watch the show and verify the information. I can't really argue with the geode example, except that geodes are a stand-alone subject whereas the Omnitrix is an aspect of a subject (in this case Ben 10), so I don't know how accurate the comparison is.
 * Beyond that, I feel that I continue to be misunderstood, so allow me to make my opinion known as clearly as I can: I will admit that there are many flaws in the Omnitrix article, but I believe that deleting this article is a bigger mistake than leaving it as it is. The Omnitrix is vital to Ben 10, so if we want to discuss the show, we need to discuss the Omnitrix. Currently, the Omnitrix has an article of its own. This may be a mistake, but it is a mistake that can be fixed without deletion. As far as I can tell, there seems to be little problem with creating pages that are little more than lists of characters, or even devoting entire pages to individual characters. This being the case, it can easily be argued that the alien forms stored in the Omnitrix can stand alone as list-of-characters-esque page. The rest of the Omnitrix page is information about the Omnitrix itself, which can be merged into other articles such as this one. Many of you have brought to the surface numerous flaws in the article, but we should at least try to correct these flaws before attempting to delete the article. For some reason, some of you can't seem to grasp this concept (I sincerely hope that I am wrong). To make a long story short, this page calls for editing, not deletion. If you wish to help us fix this article, please share your ideas/concerns here. Also, in the future, try to keep in mind that you should only delete an article after all attempts to fix it have failed (except in cases that are dead obvious, like spam, advertising, nonsense (ex: green farts taste like a brick piano, or: akdjofmnvc kjidmacoe komdciwa), etc.).
 * There it is. My opinion. My arguments. Scattered all over this page. I don't enjoy repeating myself, so please try reading through them if you haven't. (Now if only my internet connection would stop acting up.) The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, those guidelines are not there to get in the way. Thus if they are in the way, they're treated with common sense and exceptions are made. They aren't meant to define what is meant to be encyclopedic, they are meant to provide a useful framework for editors. Furthermore, your analogy of geode is poor. A geode is not a work of fiction, but a physical object. A superficial examination of a geode won't tell you much. OTOH, there's quite a lot of information that can be found even in the most superficial examinations of fictional works. I've never known a geode to have a plot. Somehow, I just find your argument unpersuasive for that reason alone. Why don't you avoid the analogies, and try an argument directly about this particular and individual subject. Maybe you should at least tell us what coverage of the Omnitrix would be appropriate in your mind? And please do that not by referring us back to those guidelines, but by really talking about this particular subject. FrozenPurpleCube 23:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Quite a few issues were raised, let me try to address them.  Ignore all rules is not a free pass, and I think ignoring verifiability is a bad idea.  That is the central issue in my opinion.  To put it simply, I think that an article on fiction that is based entirely on primary sources and is unverifiable with secondary sources does not belong on Wikipedia.  It does not matter if that article is a "sub-article" of a larger topic or not.  I reject the idea that summary style allows articles to ignore policy.  Furthermore, this article does not inherit notability from Ben 10, it must demonstrate notability with reliable, independent sources.  --Phirazo 22:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, a misunderstanding. Nobody ever said that the Omnitrix inherited notability from Ben 10 (it may have been implied somewhere, but I do not believe that is the case). Rather, our argument went more like this: "Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes, however - this does not imply an 'inherited notability' per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." By the way, this quote was take directly from WP:NOTINHERITED. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody is suggesting that this article isn't to be verified at all. You may have problems with the use of primary sources, but I'd like to see a demonstration of an actual problem in this case.  Do you have any, especially any that can't be fixed with proper editing?  FrozenPurpleCube 23:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that my internet connection is working properly, allow me to continue. I am not trying to use WP:IAR as a "get out of jail free" card. Rather, I feel this is one of the situations that it was created for. Perhaps you disagree. However, if I was trying to take advantage of IAR, I would have brought it up sooner, or tried applying it to more than one argument. On a different note, Phirazo, your argument has brought up an interesting problem. Not a problem in your argument/opinion, mind you, but rather in the guidelines. It would seem that Summary style contradicts WP:NOTABILITY and WP:FICTION, yet it is partially supported by WP:NOTINHERITED (remember my quote?). I'd hardly say that I know these policies like the back of my hand, so I don't think I can help clear up this mess. However, let me leave you with a hypothetical question to keep in mind: Why would summary style exist if the sub-articles it creates have to meet the notability guidelines on their own? The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The omnitrix is a critical element of an important work of fiction, much like the Tardis for example. Wikipedia is better with an omnitrix article than without one, so IAR applies if it is needed. Verifiability is trivially satisfied since the truth of nearly everything in the article is very carefully documented with its associated source beyond any doubt. Secondary sources should be added to the article and that can't happen if the article is deleted. If those secondary sources do not currently exist then they surely will shortly, since Ben 10 has shown itself to be popular and likely culturally influential. -- Lilwik 04:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't make any assumptions about this article, that's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, which hasn't even yet been touched on, suprisingly enough. Just because something could be or might likely be culturaly influential, doesn't mean it will, and doesn't mean that we can allow it under Crystal.Ravenmasterq 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL is about making predictions in an article such as extrapolating future history or a tentative schedule of future events, such as the release date of a movie that is still in production. It has no relevence to this discussion that I can see. We can make assumptions about this article; we just shouldn't include them in the article. -- Lilwik 00:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is an odd question, but since people are invoking ignore all rules, I think it is pertinent: How does this article make Wikipedia better for someone who is not a fan of Ben 10?  --Phirazo 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried explaining this earlier. Here's what I said: "there may be people who never watch the show and decide to come here for information about it. Those people may find the Omnitrix article very informative...After all, I'm not a fan of the Halo series, but I came here once because I wanted to learn more about it (I found the Halo article very informative)." Perhaps you don't agree, and I can understand that. Everyone has their own opinions, and (in my opinion) they are all equally valid. However, my point is that we need to cover the Omnitrix to understand Ben 10. Perhaps the current format is inappropriate, but deleting the Omnitrix article does more harm than good. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 17:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A merge from the "Description" section to Ben 10 would be fine since that section describes the device, but an in-depth OR analysis of every alien Ben can turn into is not really appropriate. This would not overburden the main article, either.  --Phirazo 22:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That I can agree with you on. In fact, I'm already working on a merge-in-progress (it's a long way from being complete). I also believe I have mentioned that the alien sections can get overly-detailed at times. However, don't forget that the Omnitrix transforms its user into a different species, so I believe it is appropriate to cover these alien forms as well. In the same respect, I don't believe it would be appropriate or effective to merge the aliens into the List of characters in Ben 10 article (or at least not without making it quite long). Someone else is currently working on a possible solution to that as well, although I believe they could very well stand alone as a list-of-characters type article. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 23:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, the article has its least value for fans of the series who already know nearly everything the article could tell them. Fans are the ones who are most likely to work on the article, but people new to the series are the ones who are most likely to gain something from it. -- Lilwik 00:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 3
Keep as per the excellent arguments made, particularly FrozenPurpleCube and HungryPaperweight. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'm flattered that you think my arguments are so good, especially since I'm so new here. Of course, I'm starting to wonder if this conversation is going anywhere but in circles. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 23:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could put this Afd for Afd! : ) Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs } 01:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's probably the best idea yet! Though at the rate we're going, that one would last 200k....Ravenmasterq 05:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Trim & Merge into other related articles. Baring that, Transwiki to Ben 10 Wiki. -- Jelly Soup 00:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep as it does contain useful information on each of the alliens used in the show. Does it really matter if they all come from inside the show? They are all mini characters in their own right. If you deleate this, you may as well deleate every other artical for a fictional character on wikipedia.Wild ste 09:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Try to avoid WP:ALLORNOTHING, though it does add to the rather impressive amount of policy discussed so far on this page.Ravenmasterq 19:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm surprised that we haven't gone over this yet. After all, the Omnitrix is central to Ben 10. Not covering the Omnitrix at all kind of defeats the purpose of including Ben 10 in Wikipedia. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to use WP:ALLORNOTHING as a keep argument. I'm just saying... The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 22:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that if you want to say that this should be deleted without saying that all the rest should be deleted, then you should take a moment to point out why this is special and different from all the rest. -- Lilwik 01:10, 4 September 2007 (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.