Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outstanding elements of Babylon 5


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There seem to be people willing to work on improving this, so let's let them have a go, and then we can revisit the question of deletion of this article or whatever other articles are created from it, at another time. – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  13:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Outstanding elements of Babylon 5

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I really love B5, having seen the show 3-4 times but... this collection of minor plot elements and props has no place in Wikipedia, failing WP:NOTWIKIA, and WP:GNG. It is a result of the some former AfDs that ended in 'merge' (ex. Articles for deletion/Triluminary), but the resulting article is a mess, and merging a bunch of topics that fail notability does not make them notable as an aggregate. Topics in this article have no wider, cultural significance, no real world impact, and don't belong on Wikipedia. Babylon 5 as a series has significant cultural influence, but Minbari Fighting Pike or Shadow Death Cloud do not, and adding them together doesn't change that. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 08:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 08:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 08:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a mess, I'll give you that--triluminary is in there twice. Since I have offline sources for pretty much everything in here... what would you like sourced?  How many non-trivial, independent, RS sources would you prefer, divided between how many of these list elements? Jclemens (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources that are not B5 primary materials, and that mention the topics in in-depth discussion? Go for it. Anything that is not going to be referenced is a valid target for WP:V removal anyway, section by section. Not much will be left... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So what I hear you saying is that 2-3 sources, spread throughout the entire list of elements (because it is a prose list, really) are sufficient to meet GNG? I can do that.  As far as the V removal, that only applies to material challenged in good faith because someone doubts its accuracy: You can't both say 'NN fancruft' and 'I don't believe it's true.' Both are valid deletion reasons, but they're opposite of each other. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if it is not referenced then it violates V and OR and should be removed. As for other stuff, it is either notable or not. If you find good sources about the cultural significance/etc. of Minbari Fighting Pike, it probably should have its own article. Stuff like Triluminary which already lost at AfD before don't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, well, outside mentions in the plot summaries for individual episodes or notable elements like characters. Frankly, the Triluminary should've been merged to article on Delenn, not to this sad list of trivia. And your time would be better spent referencing that article (I think she is notable, but you wouldn't know it from the terrible state of this plot-only summary, no significance section) article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Something doesn't violate OR just because it's unreferenced; surely you know better than that. Merging triluminary to Delenn would be inappropriate because of the three uses, two of them directly involve Jeffrey Sinclair.  Triluminary didn't "lose" an AfD:  Go review it--I proposed it be merged because it was the right thing to have done anyways.  Have you looked at List of starships in Babylon 5 or List of locations in Babylon 5? Significant elements of fictional franchises (Babylon 5 encompasses 5.5 seasons of shows, 2 aborted spinoffs, 5 TV movies, novels, comic books...) are necessary to understand them, and when not individually notable belong in list articles. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - It doesn't seem like any of the information here doesn't violate WP:NOTPLOT. Being that it's most likely in Babylon 5 Wiki already, I submit it should be deleted, and if anyone thinks they can reference it to the point of notability, draftified until such time as it's approved by a reviewer.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep 2 RS'es for Triluminary itself. You'll note that I've seriously abridged the entry, a tactic which should probably be used on most of these elements, but which demonstrates that there is nothing wrong with this list that can't be solved by regular editing. You may note that I was the editor who proposed moving it here in the first place: While I have demonstrated that 'Triluminary' is sufficiently notable for a standalone article, I do not believe that the best way to represent individual fictional elements of a show that ended so long ago. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GNG - "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." It still violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a "summary-only description".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop misapplying WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Descriptions of 'elements' are not descriptions of 'works', and a collection of elements in prose list form is even more definitely not such a summary. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that your references are not showing the Triliminary's significance outside the show. Stuff like 'The A-Z Guide to Babylon 5' or 'The Babylon File: The Unofficial Guide to J. Michael Straczynski's Bablyon 5' are encyclopedias of fictional universes. Existence of such books does show a popularity of a given universe, and they are reliable, ut I don't think they are sufficient sources for notability. If we allow such sources, we will have article about very minute elements of fictional universes, regardless of whether they meet GNG. It's not enough to have sources, they have to show the significance of the topic outside a given fictional universe. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Triluminary--and pretty much every other fictional element referenced on this page--appears in a real world, dead-tree, major-house published book is the evidence of real-world impact. What else would you expect to see in terms of real world coverage of a fictional element? Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In terms of stuff like lightsaber it appears in many news articles and the like, as well as books that are not specifically written on the subject of Star Wars and references in other famous media. The bar is high, but that's the way it's supposed to be in an encyclopedia, as it's not Wikia, where you can put any fancruft there.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Lightsabers are notable because there is a ton of articles like . I don't think B5 topics have a fraction of this type of coverage. Sad (because I think B5 is a much better show then SW), but we need to draw some standards. Well, enforce them, really, we already have them (they are called notability). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We have standards. They're called the GNG, and met by being included in summary books like the ones I've cited.  Getting an article on how someone assembled a cool-looking Triluminary or a working Minbari fighting pike for Cosplay aren't it, and aren't really going to show anything other than enduring popularity at this point. Nothing in the GNG demands the sort of coverage you ask for. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It's all in-universe plot description. The subsection on "G'Quan Eth" is particularly egregious, as is the third "reference" for Triluminary. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if it's not clear what that reference is, but it is confirmation by the author of a plot point, per WP:SPS. It's also not clear to me how your critique of one source invalidates the multiple other independent, reliable secondary sources already in the article. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Note a new print book,, has just been published. I've ordered a copy, but Amazon doesn't expect it to be here until Monday.  I expect there to be additional citations to every key fictional element discussed in this article. Jclemens (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool. I hope it will have more then just plot summaries. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You can look at the first bits online, and frankly I find it looks a lot like a cross between the books I already have and The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5. However, you make a fundamental error: plot summaries in published books are independent, reliable, secondary sources. Summarizing a fictional work requires "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" per WP:PSTS. Quoting such a work is about the only thing that does not. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The title of the list does not seem appropriate as it borders on POV issues (i.e. the inclusion of the word "outstanding" and the phrase "some of the most important" in the sentence at the top of the list). I will not say anything about the notability of this per say, but I would think that the title should change even if this is kept. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. This was one of the first combined lists of semi-notable plot elements, and as such, "outstanding" was supposed to be a substitute for "notable", IIRC.  I'd rather it change to Technology of Babylon 5, merging some stuff in, splitting out the organizations to Organizations in Babylon 5 (and sourcing them, obviously), and merging the places into List of locations in Babylon 5.  If people would stop AfD'ing stuff and actually try and help me do stuff with this, it'd be a lot easier... Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That would make sense to me. Both of your suggest titles are much more neutral and would be more appropriate for this site. Thank you for your response. Aoba47 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note I continue to make improvements to the article. I am not finished, nor am I asking for a WP:HEY reevaluation as there remains work to do, but I believe I have conclusively demonstrated that everything here can either be deleted or sourced, i.e., the article can be fixed through normal editing and deletion is unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your constant attempts to stop the deletion of the article have become disruptive, at this point it's just obfuscating the discussion with repeated WP:MERCY pleas. Ultimately, Wikipedia discourages including information with a trivial link to the real world, regardless of how many sources there are that are detailed in-universe examinations. Wikia is a place where that information can be expanded ad infinitum. Without evidence that the technology contributed to the show's success or resonated in the real world, it's just claiming notability by association.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason I am working to demonstrate that deletion is inappropriate is that I happen to have firsthand knowledge that it is, in fact, inappropriate. Your statement mischaracterizes the GNG, my actions to bring the list into line with our content guidelines, and the depth of the sources I've found.  Why don't you join in and help?  There are a ton of articles, created in Wikipedia's infancy, which could benefit from an editor or several who is willing to source things.  I'll teach. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Further note the book I purchased with which to additionally source this article, which I had not expected to arrive until Monday, arrived earlier today. As such, I've flipped through it and sourced a couple of plot points.  At this point, since this AFD was started I've added six secondary sources, with specific quotes, trimmed the unnecessary plot summary from multiple entries, and removed others entirely.  Further improvements are limited only by my time.  As such, all the previous delete !votes are moot, as they apply to a substantially earlier and inferior version of the article.  I'll note that I've specifically addressed sourcing and references as requested by Piotrus, Zxcvbnm, and Clarityfiend.
 * After mucking about in this and other B5 articles, I propose that rather than keeping this article as a dumping ground for miscellaneous B5 fictional elements, G'Quan Eth be merged into the episode in which it appears, and the rest of the article be split into two list articles, Technology of Babylon 5 and Organization in Babylon 5. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Split article between Jclemens. Having this miscellaneous article makes no sense, but the Technology of Babylon 5 would be a suitable list article to upmerge a lot of B5 articles that might fail the GNG (e.g. perhaps the starships list) while Organizations in Babylon 5 would be an upmerge target for several B5 organization articles, and could potentially be merged with the civilizations list. Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)  Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think races/civilizations and organizations might eventually merit merging, but B5 is so starship-heavy, I think keeping technology and starships separate makes more sense. BUT, if you want, we can resurrect the B5 Wikiproject and use it, rather than AfD's, to hash out where all this stuff should actually go... Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is, can we find sources to show that those techs and orgs are notable? Even Psi Corps, which is a major plot element, is currently in a terrible state and desperately needs referencing (hint) because in current state it begs to be taken here. (FYI, I'd try to reference it myself before taking it here...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have invested, over the years, $60 or so to acquire 5 books, with two more on the way: Babylon 5 aired when the Internet was in its infancy, so much of the coverage is in Usenet or dead tree only. More esoteric sources are rare and cost-prohibitive. This is in addition to the hours I've spent on B5 articles, which prevents me from doing other things on Wikipedia, like GA reviews I've got pending. If you want to help me clean things up, I'll be happy to tag-team on it: Cut the cruft down and I can source the rest, but there's only one of me, and I happen to have four jobs and two degree programs I also have to invest in. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd really like to work with you, but the one problem is that you think that sourcing plot elements is important, but I stand with the other crowd who thinks it is mostly trivia that doesn't belong here. What we have to write and source is stuff about real life connections and significance. B5 is important not because it had (pretty good) plot, but because of the real life impact it had. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't have to agree with me to clean up the parts we both agree need to be cleaned up. I don't have the bandwidth to debate multiple AFDs at once.  Withdraw your AfD of Grey Council without prejudice, work with me to merge the rest of the stuff into more well-organized list articles, and then continue working with me at a reasonable pace on the rest of the Babylon 5 content so we can clean stuff up together, without holding the gun of AfD to the content. What do you have to lose? Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 05:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of WP:FANCRUFT. Even if every word of it was sourced, it would need to be to sources that themselves aren't fancruft, and to include some non-arbitrary criteria for inclusion, whereas the only criteria for inclusion now appears to be that a particular editor decided to write about it. This adds little to nothing beyond what is provided by Template:Babylon 5, and belongs on Wikia, if anywhere.  G M G  talk   14:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but isn't a major house published dead-tree book entirely incompatible with WP:FANCRUFT? Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How many books do you think have been published on Magic: The Gathering? A lot, and that's why excessively trivial and arbitrary details go on the fan wiki and not on Wikipedia. The contents of this article are, as far as I can tell, impossible to describe in a way that is not "in world", and even if you could, there's nothing I see approaching any objective criteria for inclusion, which makes it an indiscriminate list based on original research.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   16:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your argument is entirely, thoroughly, and completely wrong. Writing out of secondary sources, no matter how much you may not like them, is not OR, not FANCRUFT.  It's core Wikipedia value: we write about what independent RS'es have covered.  Magic: The Gathering certainly has a lot of secondary RS'es as well, so I have no idea what your actual argument boils down to other than WP:NIME. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that these sources tend to describe the subject from usually a completely in-world perspective, and if it's completely in-world, then it's just a selective plot summary. In comparison, a list of main characters can at least get out-of-world by talking about what actors played those characters, what the reviews of their performances wrote, and maybe whether they received personal recognition for the role.
 * The second problem is that there is no even semi-objective standard that I can tell for what would be an "outstanding element". In the case that you got into a content dispute, I don't see any source really at all that you could point to to say what was and was not outstanding, without relying primarily on the opinion on editors. If you include every aspect of the world, then it is an indiscriminate list. If you include only certain aspects of the world at the preference of editors, then it is still an indiscriminate list.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   21:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the above discussion, where all of your objections have already been answered: 1) "Outstanding" was a previous attempt to avoid putting "notable" in an article title. 2) It has already been proposed to be split/changed, 3) The proposed split articles (Organizations, Technology) have obviously defined inclusion criteria, 4) there is no requirement for GNG to be met by reliable, independent "not in universe" sources, 5) you haven't described any problem that cannot be fixed by regular editing, and of course 6) INDISCRIMINATE doesn't mean what you're using it to mean. My apologies that the discussion is so lengthy, but it was not my idea to have such a discussion here. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NLIST clarifies indiscriminacy with regard to lists, saying the criteria for inclusion should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. This is ambiguous, subjective, and specifically chosen because notability has a particular meaning on WP, and we needed a more meaningless word. If you want to copy it into your sandbox and try to parse it out into some list that meets this criteria, then you can always do that, but this should still be deleted, because it does not appear to be a particularly plausible search term, and I don't see an obvious redirect other than the main article, for which people would presumably just search for the actual title.   G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   10:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria for the two proposed articles are pretty clear: Multiply reliably sourced [organizations|technologies] appearing in Babylon 5 fictional works. "Outstanding elements of Babylon 5" is an absolutely terrible article title--I do not think there is anyone proposing anything be left at the current title except a redirect, and so to the extent your !vote is against the article title, it misses the point.  I would be happy to break up this article RIGHT NOW, except there's this whole AfD thing going on, which prevents me from doing so.  Change your !vote to Keep and break up, renominate new articles for AfD if desired and we can change the whole conversation. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:INUNIVERSE - and where does the WP:PEACOCK term "outstanding" fit in the title? Who decides what is "outstanding"? Notable, I would understand, but then all entries would require an article establishing individual notability.  No, this list is as stated above - WP:FANCRUFT.  Whatever elements are truly outstanding (if any) should be merged into the Babylon 5 article, and we can nuke this from orbit.  Scr ★ pIron IV 22:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please red my last reply to GreenMeansGo, immediately above this, where I respond to these in detail. Well, except for FANCRUFT, which does not apply to reliably sourced plot elements: if it's sourced appropriately, it's not fancruft. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Cruft is cruft, and of interest to only a minuscule subsection of of our readers. It belongs on fanpages, wikias, and geek sites - not in an encyclopedia. Plot elements belong in articles on the show itself, not some indiscriminate list of "OH, I LIKE this one!" trivia.  Scr ★ pIron IV 12:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 'cruft' is a term of art, and refers to details of a notable fictional franchise that are both 1) of limited interest, as you say, and 2) not themselves reliably sourced. If it's RS'ed, it's not cruft. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note Further sourced material has since been merged into this article per Articles for deletion/Phased plasma gun. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 ( c ) (m)   19:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The title is a bit silly. Just under it, the contents of the page are described as the "mythological elements" of Babylon 5. Searching for "outstanding" along with Babylon 5 only brings up this page. If anything the title should be Mythological elements. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm tempted to just fix things--breaking up and renaming what is sourceable--despite the AfD, as this saga has been dragging on for a month now. I wouldn't want to circumvent the process, but the lack of closure here hinders progress. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You should just edit the page as you see fit. I don't think there is a rule against improving an article while an AfD is going, the opposite. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu  Talk To Me  06:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with Mr. Magoo - title is silly. "Outstanding" often implies a subjective quality assessment, of which this isn't (I realise it's intended as 'additional'. Perhaps it should be renamed to the form of "List of minor..." to make that clearer (and "Lists of minor" are so common there is a whole category for lists of minor fictional characters! (Category:Lists_of_minor_fictional_characters). So, something akin to that? .../NemoThorx (talk • Contributions) 05:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Once this AfD closes, I can begin meaningful rearchitecting of this content into a better presentation. Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.