Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silent Hill influences and trivia (2nd nomination)


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

The result was Remove cruft, merge to game article(s), and delete. FT2 (Talk 13:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been listed for AFD once before, in January 2007. There are several proposed arguments concerning what policy does and doesn't say, to review up-front: AFD is not here to affect policy. An article's AFD is decided on its own merits and current standards, not by reference to other articles (WP:DP) or "what-if"s.
 * 1) "Imagine if every popular series had articles to eliminate lists" (per nom).
 * 1) The nominator comments on reliable sources, and "Livejournal and geocities". The relevant policy is verifiability, "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Without judging whether this is right or wrong (policy such as WP:OR states fairly firmly it is wrong) more leeway has historically been granted by the community on what is considered a reliable source for popular culture matters, than in (for example) science or more academically supported subjects. The "threshold for inclusion" on Wikipedia is verifiability (WP:V), so a statement that is plainly verifiable by anyone referencing the media itself, and does not breach WP:OR (synthesis, novel position, etc) in doing so, may meet this requirement.
 * 2) "There is no way to save this one because an encyclopedic treatment is impossible" (user:Jay32183). Disagree - I see no reason that in principle trivia could not be encyclopedic. it's just a bit more difficult, and especially as a separate article (which has to justify its independent existance). WP:TRIVIA does not support this argument, nor does any other policy I can find.
 * 3) Weak articles that are capable of meeting inclusion criteria should usually be salvaged and cleaned up, not AFD'ed (user:Wikidemo). I concur.
 * 4) "There was already an AFD consensus reached five months ago ... we shouldn't be opening up the same debate again a second time hoping for a new result" (user:Wikidemo) Disagree. More than enough time has passed for repeat AFD to be a fair reconsideration if editors still have concerns. WP:DP does not have an objection to relisting over legitimate (rather than tendentious) concerns.
 * 5) It's worth finally, summarizing what WP:TRIVIA ("Avoid trivia sections") is about. It does not say trivia sections should not exist; rather it advises that the facts they contain are often better presented as prose within a structure, should not stray excessively from the main article, and that the existance of a trivia section may encourage the addition of excessive 'cruft (see also: WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"). It also notes that "Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dumping ground for speculation, rumor, invented 'facts'..." and directs that Original research and  Cite your sources apply equally to trivia sections.

With that as background, examining the points made in this discussion, the main keep reasons are No evidence provided to this AFD that a long trivia list is necessary to cover these. Influences and features can be captured in a few short paragraphs, with trivia being used as examples or footnote references, for example. If the trivia were in and of themselves notable, then we would have more verifiable reliable sources cited in this AFD (or indeed in the article) and much lower reliance upon self-published sources. I don't buy this. I don't see editors "recoiling in horror". The points in any AFD decision are intended to be all about policy, and the closing editor of an AFD debate looks for policy related points and evidence, even if the contributors don't. If the article had been given an academic name and still mostly contained uncited editor's views, there is no reason to believe the views of others would be any different than we see. Also, five months between first and second AFD is fairly good evidence that editors allowed the first AFD to follow through, and adopted an extremely patient outlook before renominating due to unresolved concerns. Assume good faith applies - and seems fully justified by the evidence. Disagree. Images have clearly been selected to illustrate the article text. Perhaps there are too many, especially considering they are fair use only, but that's not an AFD issue.
 * 1) Notability of influences and features (user:Wikidemo)
 * 1) AFD views would be different if the article were named differently and not "trivia", etc (user:Richard Cane)
 * 1) That the article is "one giant fair use gallery" (per nom)
 * 1) "A list of in-jokes and references to other things incorporated into a video game series? No. These things are not notable" (user:Otto4711). I concur. This fairly characterizes much of the trivia. Examples of excessive trivia: "In Old Silent Hill there is a store on the edge of a ravine that is called the "Mark Twain Book & Gift Shop". A shop shutter has a Jack Daniels logo. No evidence is provided to this AFD, to support that these are notable and not just random triviacruft.
 * 2) The trivia "helps [readers to] understand its convoluted storyline" (user:thaddius) Not an argument ("we should list trivia because there isn't a clear high quality explanation of the storyline in the storyline section on the game's own article" ??) Much of the trivia is completely irrelevant to an understanding of the game's storyline, too.
 * 3) "[The trivia section shows the effort] that developers put into the game to show their influences in the story, and it shows a great connection between the writers and art direction teams." (user:Thaddius). Concur, a good point, and encyclopedically valid. Note that this could be covered equally well by a short paragraph in the main article, and some examples, which would be more in line with the spirit of WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT.

Ultimately I concur with the view expressed by several editors: "If it was stripped down to what can be adequately referenced, the content would be small enough to merge into the main article." (user:Marasmusine) ... "Indiscriminate information" (user:DarkSaber2k) ... "Perhaps merge what little material there is merging but delete the rest as per DarkSaber2k" (user:WarthogDemon).

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection (WP:NOT). There is a need to select which facts are to be represented, rather than necessarily presenting all of them. Some items are valuable cites to support encyclopedic statements about the game, its design, and its creators motives and work, but much is non-notable 'cruft (WP:NOT applies). I'm also noting the claim (no evidence provided at AFD) that trivia has been moved around because of "better there than here" or specifically to preserve it from pruning or removal; neither of these would be appropriate, and forking for that reason wouldn't be appropriate either.

Trivia sections are in general discouraged to prevent exactly the kind of excessive indiscriminate notes that this article contains. Some content is valuable and probably deserves a place on the main article, but the bottom line on this AFD is that, having considered carefully the arguments proposed in this AFD, and the contents of the trivia page, no good policy-based case has yet been made on this AFD either 1/ for trivia to have its own article, or 2/ of notability for much of the trivia list in general, or 3/ that there is so much notable trivia that Summary style is appropriate to fork it as a new article. The delete/merge view seems much more supported by policy, and is also the view of a large number of editors expressing their views.

Silent Hill influences and trivia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Where to begin with this one. It's one giant fair use gallery (including many images linked from text). The entire article is a trivia section. It contains original research. The cited sources are Livejournal and Geocities. I appreciate people may have worked hard on it but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. -N 03:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * keep. Whatever I might think there was already an AFD consensus reached five months ago to keep the article.  Under the  "asking the other parent" rulre we shouldn't be opening up the same debate again a second time hoping for a new result.  Silent Hill is an important, influential game with wide interest.  The subject of its influences and features is notable, and there is notable material in the article.  There may indeed be problems with unsourced material, original reserach, trivia sections within the article, and other things, but the proper course to a weak article is to clean it up, not delete it.Wikidemo 03:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is desinged to be trivia and original research. There is no way to save this one because an encyclopedic treatment is impossible. The keeps in the last debate did not raise one valid point, the closing was definitely in error. Jay32183 04:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've held off from nominating this again in the past because I've felt that it could somehow be salvaged. But then if it was stripped down to what can be adequately referenced, the content would be small enough to merge into the main article. Marasmusine 07:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 07:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agreed with everything said above. This is a collection of trivia collected through original research, and easily belongs on E-Gamia rather than Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd  08:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - To me, this article is just as erroneous as the Seven Hour War, yet no one contests it. I'm sure there are many other articles like this that escape scrutiny. Ah well. --Thaddius 15:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I hope that isn't meant as the other stuff exists argument. DarkSaber2k 15:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 09:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:AVTRIV and WP:OR. A list of in-jokes and references to other things incorporated into a video game series? No. These things are not notable. The word "trivia" right in its name is always a bad sign. A previous AFD may have said to keep but consensus can change and consensus against these sorts of articles is pretty clear. Otto4711 12:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article was created when trivia lists from the four Silent Hill were the subject of an editing war; some users refused to keep them on the main page and no one made an effort to integrate them into the main article. The person who created this article did so with the intention of creating prose to be reinserted back into the individual SH articles. Oh, and it's only the first game that has a list of in-jokes, the rest is general trivia. --Thaddius 13:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the only bit worth integrating is a handful of the referenced sentences from the opening paragraphs on infulences. Marasmusine 14:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's certainly your prerogative, but others may not agree. One problem is that one of the sourced points you're referring to is from a fan translation of a Japanese-only book, which is apparently unverifiable. --Thaddius 14:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - People often frown upon video games for simply being video games; left with a stigma of being 'for kids' and therefore insignificant. Because of that, people ignore the medium's potential as an art form. I'm not pretentious enough to claim Silent Hill as a work of art, but it cannot be argued that it is a postmodern pastiche, and this article is a guide to understanding its unique and convoluted storyline. While fancruft to some, the article is, currently, a list of purposeful references that developers put into the game to show their influences in the story, and it shows a great connection between the writers and art direction teams. Frankly I'm tired of defending this article, and I'm not up to bringing it up to scratch, but hopefully, if the article survives, this whole deletion thing might start some editors into action. If not, I assure you others will move this information back onto the individual game articles and this will start all over again. --Thaddius 14:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we will go through the same process and point out that the E-Gamia wiki is perfect for this material. --Scottie_theNerd  08:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivia is not encyclopedic, see WP:TRIV. Influences are very poorly sourced. hbdragon88 05:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:AVTRIV, Unverifiable, original research, seemingly unreliable sources (LiveJournal and Geocities? Give us a break!) and Indiscriminate information. DarkSaber2k 09:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete As per the reasons above. Perhaps merge what little material there is merging but delete the rest as per DarkSaber2k. -WarthogDemon 16:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with the main article. Carlossuarez46 19:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with main article or individual game articles. Ubersuntzu 07:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * With no reliable sources, merging is a very bad idea. Jay32183 17:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That's why it was made into its own article to begin with. --Thaddius 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope that isn't meant as the better here than there argument. Jay32183 21:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's meant as a 'this has been moved around a lot by people who want to preserve it' thing. --Thaddius 17:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Moving around information you don't want deleted to avoid it's deletion is not an action that is easy to assume good faith over. DarkSaber2k 15:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said I moved anything? I did not create the article in question, a quick check of the history can verify that, and I personally don't care about what happens to the article. I will not be moving this info around to preserve it but I know that others will. I was not making a threat, I was stating a fact. In future please avoid making baseless accusations. --Thaddius 01:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure junk page, per others. Dannycali 03:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is not shrinking as other pages are expanded, and indeed the Silent Hill 2 section has been turned into little more than a listified version of information contained on the main article. All the information here could still be found in the histories of their source articles as well. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 17:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Keep Quit being mean to Pyramid Head!--Perceive 03:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And what does 'being mean to Pyramid Head' have to do with Wikipedias policies and guidelines? DarkSaber2k 08:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I think everyone is just recoiling in horror at the word "trivia". If this was called "An in-depth analysis of Silent Hill's cultural references" instead everyone wouldn't be so violently opposed to it being here. Richard Cane 13:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's bogus. If everyone's only problem was with the name of the article, they would have all said 'keep and rename'. What about the multiple policies and guidelines that have been cited as reason to delete? Nothing to do with the name. DarkSaber2k 13:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The main complaint of the person who nominated this for deletion is that the entire article is a "trivia section". I doubt he'd be complaining if it was a "cultural reference" section. Richard Cane 13:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * More than just the nominator have given reasons for this article being deleted you know. And most of those reasons are based on actual policies and guidelines, instead of 'I like it' and 'It's not doing any harm'. The nominator ALSO said that the article was mostly original research and that the provided sources were not reliable. Again, nothing to do with the title of the article, but everything to do with wikipedias core policies and guidelines for suitable articles. DarkSaber2k 13:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this. What if this article was about a book written in the 19th century and it gave all the people, places, and cultural references of that time period which could better help anyone reading it have a frame of reference to the events alluded to in that novel. Would there be any objection to it being on Wikipedia? I think this being a video game in a modern era heavily influences your and other's perceptions regarding the validity of this article being here. Richard Cane 13:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't possibly elaborate on what would or wouldn't be acceptable in an article about a 19th century book since we are not discussing an article about a 19th century book. What we ARE discussing is an article containing indiscriminate original research that is unverifible due to unreliable sources. The time period has nothing to do with this, it is about how the wikipedia policies apply to the article. Being about a game has nothing to do with it in the grand scheme of things. If that theoretical article about that book was written exactly the same way as this, right down to the choice of sources, I think you would find people would be just as happy to say 'delete it' as they are here. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but your last sentence is saying I'm biased against this article because it's related to video games? That could not be further from the truth, and I would thank you not to make such generalisations based on absolutely zero knowledge of me. DarkSaber2k 13:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If Moby-Dick in popular culture is allowed on here than I think this should be too. That's just what I believe. Richard Cane 13:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what wikipedia believes about what you believe. We aren't discussing moby dick in popular culture. Feel free to nominate that for deletion if you have a problem with it. And besides, this article is about references to popular culture within the game series, not mentions of the game in popular culture.DarkSaber2k 13:52, 3 July 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.