Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resources Development Administration (RDA)


 * 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 delete. Clear consensus against retaining this article remains at this time, though it does not hold that the subject is inherently not suitable for inclusion and significant support exists for allowing the recreation of the article after it undergoes some improvement and can better demonstrate notability. Article has been userfied by another admin and there is no prejudice against recreation. S warm  ♠  07:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Resources Development Administration (RDA)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

it does not cite any third party reliable sources and so may not be in accordance to the WP:Notability & WP:Sources Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and Userfy per below: While the film in which the RDA appears is notable (Avatar (2009 film)), I find it unlikely that the organization is considered particularly notable outside the context of the film. DonIago (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonIago (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * But the article may be notable to some readers.I feel it explains important backstory and the protagonists motives. Blisspop (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be a good reason to add it to an appropriate wiki for the film, but is not a good reason for it to have an article here. Articles here should focus on subjects that satisfy basic notability concerns as linked above. DonIago (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * throughout Wikipedia there are many pages in description of various protagonist groups. One such example is Team Rocket from Pokémon. I don't see what harm the rda page can cause. If references is the issue I can add valid ones. Blisspop (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're able to add reliable sources, preferably independent ones, that discuss RDA in any significant detail I would highly recommend doing so. The lack of such presently is a significant reason for this AfD. DonIago (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ill add the links. Please don't delete it now Blisspop (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Whilst the film is obviously notable, I can find no evidence this fictional company within it is. RichardOSmith (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * don't delete Whats the harm in having some extra information on the topic???? Blisspop (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As the article creator it is right and proper you should contribute here. However, the above is unlikely to persuade any administrator to keep the article, as explained at WP:NOHARM. I strongly encourage you to look at WP:GOODARG and DonIago's comments above for advice. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean.I will add good references but i need time.My exams are going on hence i m a bit short of spare time.If i may ask can you remove the tag the review the page after a week?This would be sufficient time. Blisspop (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the article be moved into your userspace for you to complete when you are ready. That cannot now just happen as there are delete !votes on this AfD - mine, 's and 's as nominator. I am happy for the move to take place as an alternative to delete and if you can persuade Doniago and Peppy Paneer likewise then the AfD can be withdrawn and the article moved. Alternatively, the closing admin may conclude that this is the best option anyway. Even if it is deleted you can always ask for a copy of the text by following WP:REFUND, but be aware that articles that are successfully nominated for deletion are speedy deletable if they return substantially unchanged. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with it being userfied as an alternative to outright deletion. DonIago (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, since you want to work more on this article, I am happy to withdraw the nomination. Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * An AfD can't be withdrawn once anyone else has supported it (WP:WDAFD), though you're welcome to change your own vote. I continue to feel in its current state the article either needs to be userfied as mentioned above or outright deleted. I have grave doubts that there will be sources to establish that RDA is notable outside the film. DonIago (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I did WP:BEFORE before putting an Afd place. And even I do have a doubt that there will be sources which will make the article stay in article space. With the article in its current state, my vote and arguments are still in favor of Delete. As the author wants to work more on the article, so I just don't want to discourage the author. And yes if nomination withdrawal takes place, then the article should be moved to the author's user space or draft space. And the main article could be deleted as per the author request's deletion or redirects left behind criteria. Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Pragmatism I offer no opinion on the article. For pragmatism let us speedy close this as Move to Draft: namespace and allow the author time in abundance.
 * While one may not, technically, withdraw a nomination once others support it, in real life this happens. The nominator's deletion opinion is then disregarded. Fiddle   Faddle  10:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

17:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rortosthanos (talk • contribs)
 * delete there is nothing salvageable or worth salvaging . WP:TNT / WP:WAF. Create a redirect under the proper Resources Development Administration and redirect to Fictional universe of Avatar. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No opposition to recreation based upon reliably sourced materials that are being brought forward. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * removal of AFD i would like to thank Peppy Paneer for your support. I will do my best to ensure this page meets wikipedia standards.
 * delete Is there any discussion of this outside the one film?  Has it crossed over into other films? Is it a significant meme or even a logo for T shirts beyond the film?   Plenty of such organisations in sf texts have managed this, it's not impossible. But there's no indication that this one has. As such it belongs as a section within the broader film article(s). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and Userfy - since there is an interested editor, but there is currently not enough to support this subject's notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting after an initial "delete" closure per a request on my talk page.  Sandstein  18:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable topic. There is commentary about this fictional organization in Google Books. Global Entertainment Media: Between Cultural Imperialism and Cultural Globalization says, "Avatar represents the colonial self (the RDA) and the colonized other (the Na'vi) through the lens of Orientalist stereotypes (Said 1979). In Avatar, the colonial self is portrayed as active, technological, modern, forward-looking, and rational, while the colonized other is depicted as passive, naturalistic, traditional, backwards, and spiritual." Avatar and Philosophy: Learning to See says, "Avatar's Resources Development Administration (RDA) corporation offers a picture of what British Petroleum (BP) or Halliburton might be like if they could operate on an interplanetary scale... If the actions of the RDA and its private military force bring to mind examples of American imperialism and environmental exploitation, perhaps it's because our own world is poisoned by similarly perverse values. The RDA's attempt to wipe out an indigenous population to clear a path to natural resources looks a lot like our genocide of Native Americans, as well as like our ongoing decimation of the rain forest. At times, the RDA's attempt to suppress the Na'vi insurgents evokes the jungle war in Vietnam." These passages were from the first page of Google Books results, and there is likely more if effort is made. The article status has no bearing on the topic's notability, per WP:BEFORE. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * even with what you have linked above, there is nothing in the current article that is worth salvaging as a base or add-on to what might be derived from any reliable sources. The material can be easily covered in an existing article and if more substantial appears, then spin off having a good base to work from. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , see four more passages added below. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would still say you would end up with none of content from the existing article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE says, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." This means that a topic's notability is independent of the shape the article is in. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont consider "erase everything because none of it is appropriate" to be "normal editing" - that is pretty non-normal editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The link goes to a page's section that says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Surely with the sources I've listed here, editing in content based on these sources will improve the page? "Normal editing" means writing an article the way it should be typically written, to have verifiable content, and in this case, a real-world perspective. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete this fictional entity. Yes, it exists in a blockbuster film, and yes, it's been discussed in at least one book, but I don't see significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The above passages are indeed significant coverage. WP:SIGCOV specifically says, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There is a footnote that says a one-sentence mention of a band in one's biography is "plainly trivial", so surely the above assessment of the fictional organization exceeds plain trivia. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional coverage:
 * Critical Pedagogy in the Twenty-first Century: A New Generation of Scholars says, "...by refusing the Manichean biopolitics and zero-sum game of RDA, the Na'vi attempt to retain their integrity and plant a seed to enlarge the zoe community on more Pandoran terms... in a certain sense, RDA symbolizes Columbus and the Na'vi are the peaceable Caribs (until Columbus started chopping their heads off in search of gold)."''
 * Marxism and the Movies: Critical Essays on Class Struggle in the Cinema says, "The cumulative by-product however would lead to the unity of the five clans of Pandora against the RDA Corporation and this represents a type of proletariat revolution... Comparisons abound between the struggles of the Na'vi against the RDA Corporation to that of Native Americans against the U.S. military... The RDA Corporation are clearly the capitalists of on Pandora... as the imperialists with the ability to travel across galaxies, RDA represents a technologically evolved social class. The Na'vi represent the proletariart and the Omaticaya clan literally translates to 'the people.' As mentioned earlier, the RDA is willing to mine unobtainium at any cost. They have justified class conflict in the name of economic riches."
 * The Post-2000 Film Western: Contexts, Transnationality, Hybridity says, "Within the structural framework, the RDA, which represents the mining and resource development needs of Earth, can be metaphorically read as a futuristic Department of the Interior, which within the United States' political structure oversees federal land management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)... On Pandora, the military and the scientific Avatar Project fall directly under the purview of the RDA... their mission also includes acting as liaisons with the Na'vi, educating them and convincing them to accept the RDA's mining operation. The military ensures the success of the operation; its placement in the story reminds us that when the BIA was first created in 1824 it was housed in the War Department."
 * Revisioning, Renewing, Rediscovering the Triune Center says, "The RDA corporation is a stereotypical organizational cog within an industrial-military complex, driven by nothing more than a lust for more profit... the corporate leaders... are anthropomorphic prudes, refusing to acknowledge even the human-like agency of the Na'vi, whom they refer to as 'blue monkeys.' Members of the RDA coalition are also prudish in their sociography, forcing their own norms upon others, with little patience for anything that challenges their capitalist inscriptions."
 * Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ,, , : I have uncovered and shared passages about the organization. I ask that you review the passages and see if they contribute to the topic meeting the notability guidelines. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really I'm afraid. They're great sources for a discussion of Avatar and themes within Avatar (and please use them somewhere, they're good), but they're not goood sources on RDA. Mostly because RDA just seems to be a thin and undeveloped "character" within the film. As the last of these sources has it, "The RDA corporations is a stereotypical organizational cog within an industrial-military complex, driven by nothing more than a lust for profit."  That's a trope that can probably be found in Marx and certainly any sf onwards from that. It's just unoriginal and as such, not generating the coverage specific to RDA that we're looking for here.  In fact, I'd use it in a subsection within a broad Avatar article critiquing the lack of depth to this organisation.
 * BTW - Enthusiastic support for userfying this. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All the passages above are specific to RDA. Notability is not about what makes a topic different from other topics, and even if one source simply calls it a mere trope (but did not leave it there), other sources make connections to history and culture that are surely worth consolidating. There is always going to be redundancy with works of fiction and their elements, and based on these sources, it can be worthwhile to lift this distinct topic out of being buried in other Avatar-related content. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Another source:
 * The Films of James Cameron: Critical Essays, says, "It is certainly worth noting the reviews that have connected the RDA's exploits on Pandora with the similar exploits of Halliburton in Iraq... Cameron shows the RDA actions on Pandora as being a replay of the current war in Iraq... The actions of the RDA represent a perspective of American policy since 9/11. The whole enterprise is framed with post-9/11 rhetoric."
 * Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, courtesy userfy - Per WP:AGF we may give a chance the uathor to re-submit the article, but as it stands now, it fails wikipedia criteria big time. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC
 * Per our notability standards, an article's format is not a cause for deletion and always far less an issue when topic notability is established and the article can be easily fixed. Just sayin'.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 21:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right, but IMO notability is not established. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine to disagree with and myself, but a guideline requirement for  significant coverage does not mandate an additional requirement that they also be the not-a-guideline substantial coverage you might prefer.  And so if meeting WP:SIGCOV, even if available sources were not originally used, the topic can be seen to meet our "wikipedia criteria" for inclusion. Thanks and cheers,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please WP:NPA. Second, the key word here "suitable sources". And what constitute suitable sources, when in doubt,  is decided by community consensus. And I would like to remind you that community includes me, i.e., "what I prefer" does count. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reminder that you are a part of it, but a community here is comprised of many individuals. And when the many voices agree with one way to handle something, a dissenting voice might speak but rarely changes the minds of the many.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "dissenting"? Please count the votes, colleague. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Read hyperbole, colleague. Out of some 26,408,816 named users, we few here are less than a drop in the ocean. LOL. See my comments below.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * keep duplicate !vote struck Just to add to my argument, there is a page about Rda on the Italian Wikipedia  Blisspop (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (modified - see my comments below) Keep per 's quite sensible arguments and his showing (and explaining just how) WP:SIGCOV is met.  While sure it is fine to delete crap articles, but when we have weak but improvable topics, it benefits Wikipedia and its readership to encourage and make corrections. Not to sound like an inclusionist, specially as I am quite willing to opine deletes, but in this case deletion does not improve the encyclopedia. Thank you .     Schmidt,  Michael Q. 21:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added more references and will continue to do so. RDA is notable as there is a whole world of RDA toys and Merchandise.Please keep the article as it has been improved and will continue to do so. Blisspop (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Andy's arguments of SIGCOV not being met. As the owner of a T-shirt for the Alien Franchise Weyland-Yutani/Weyland Corp., I can understand the wanting of an article.  Weyland is in atleast five Aliens/Prometheus movies and counting.  I just don't see significant coverage about the company.  Perhaps when more movies are released.  TV shows companies (aka Dharma Initiative) are more likely to meet significant coverage as they stay around longer.  Bgwhite (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, well-intended non-guideline arguments unaccepting of the fact might well be ignored by a closer, for the guideline requirement for independent reliable sources which speak of the topic directly has been shown to be met.  Sources addressing the topic in and in more-than-trivial manner are offered and have been used to improve the poorer article first brought to AFD.  A laudable wish for WP:SUBSTANTIAL coverage is not a policy nor guideline requirement. Thanks  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Schmidt, your vehement efforts to shut every contrary opinion and force your opinion down the closer's throat are troublesome. Please stop being a plug for every leak. I can do the same and plug your posts with mine. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I address possible misinterpretations of existing guideline, which is not a personal attack. And since this is a discussion, you are quite welcome to explore my answers and refute them. I am sorry if you feel my wishing to prevent pertinent guideline from being overlooked as "vehement", and I apologize if that is your perception. But in fact, it seems we are not that far apart in our considerations. See my comments below.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate your tone Michael. I'm not going to respond to your snide remarks. Bgwhite (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I seek to address possible misinterpretations of applicable guideline, which is not a personal attack. And since this is a discussion, you are quite welcome to explore my answers and refute them, or call then "snide" and choose to not do so. I am sorry if you sense a "tone" you do not like, and I apologize if that is your perception. See my comments below.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , you said you're looking for significant coverage about the company, but WP:SIGCOV says, " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Do you not find that the 7-8 different passages making specific assessments of this fictional organization count as significant coverage? They may not be the main topics, but they're certainly more than trivial mentions, meaning that the authors made a point to write about an aspect of the organization, e.g. making historical comparisons, especially the way the organization is structured, like being similar to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Why can't all this be consolidated to write about the organization? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about., please don't cherry pick quotes, WP:SIGCOV say exactly, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material  The keywords are addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed.
 * "Revisioning, Renewing, Rediscovering the Triune Center" contains one small paragraph about the RDA.
 * "The Post-2000 Film Western: Contexts, Transnationality, Hybridity" contains one sentence about the RDA.
 * "Marxism and the Movies: Critical Essays on Class Struggle in the Cinema" contains two sentences about the RDA
 * "Critical Pedagogy in the Twenty-first Century: A New Generation of Scholars" contains one sentence about the RDA.
 * What do we know from the sources? RDA is a big bad corporation and nothing more.  Books use the RDA as a metaphor, but they do not address the RDA directly and in detail. Bgwhite (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I did not omit the first sentence on purpose. I did not find it applicable because we can all agree that this fictional organization exists. It is named and described, so there is no original research involved, as may happen with a more abstract topic. Whether or not it is "in detail" is a fair point, though. That's why I highlighted the second sentence about not having to be the main topic. This organization will be repeatedly be discussed in the context of the film. I find the descriptions incorrect, though. For the book The Post-2000 Film Western: Contexts, Transnationality, Hybridity, you state that there is only one sentence about the RDA. This is untrue; the whole paragraph (about 9 sentences, maybe 200-300 words?) makes historical comparisons with the RDA. Marxism and the Movies: Critical Essays on Class Struggle in the Cinema brings up the RDA multiple times across a page. It does not mean that the whole page could be paraphrased to be put into the article. It can be distilled. This is the same for Critical Pedagogy in the Twenty-first Century: A New Generation of Scholars, where it is again more than just one sentence. (Look for instances of RDA, not just the full organization's title.) I think that across the sources available (and I have found more in Google Books), even when distilled all together, would make a reasonable article about the organization. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * comment on additional sources listed here. I did not go through all of them, but two I bothered to open are published in vanity press and hence are not WP:RS. Therefore claims about "significant coverage" are questionable. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which sources do you consider vanity press? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Global Entertainment Media: Between Cultural Imperialism and Cultural Globalization: Routledge
 * Avatar and Philosophy: Learning to See: John Wiley & Sons
 * Critical Pedagogy in the Twenty-first Century: A New Generation of Scholars: Information Age Publishing
 * The Post-2000 Film Western: Contexts, Transnationality, Hybridity: Palgrave Macmillan
 * Marxism and the Movies: Critical Essays on Class Struggle in the Cinema: Wipf and Stock
 * The Films of James Cameron: Critical Essays: McFarland
 * I am not seeing any indication that any of these sources are under a vanity press. Even if some are, there are reputable publishers in the above list. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Userfy article for now (I have struck out my earlier position to keep). I have not contributed any improvements to this article even though I listed sources in this discussion, and I would like an opportunity to do so. I believe there is potential for a well-developed and well-sourced article, and I will work with the creator to do this. I ask for the article to be moved to Draft:Resources Development Administration (without the "(RDA)") for further development and a follow-up review based on what is consolidated and structured. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Userfy as as several others suggest.  I fully agree with guideline WP:NPOSSIBLE that an article's quality or length or it not using available sources is not a reason to delete.  While certainly any article within these pages could be whittled down and eventually merged somewhere else, that does not BUILD an encyclopedia. While AFD not intended to force improvements, I believe in WP:SEP and in my attempts improving this project for its readers (and I've had some small successes doing so) I would far rather improve something myself or seek other's help in improving if I have weaknesses. Just as does, I look beyond present state and instead look toward WP:POTENTIAL. Even if considered faulty by some, this topic, spoken of in |more-than-trivial manner in numerous sources (thank you , for always looking beyond an AFD template's fallible "Find sources") is notable per guideline. We improve that which is improvable, for even in its admitting it is itself imperfect, deletion does not always improve a growing Wikipedia. As he has the knowledge and is willing to do so for the project, I agree it be done.  I have struck my "keeps" above. Schmidt,  Michael Q.


 * 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.