Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zion (The Matrix) (2nd nomination)


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

The result was keep. There was also a compelling argument to merge, this decision should not preclude continuing that conversation on the talk page. J04n(talk page) 16:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Zion (The Matrix)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Made up of entirely unsourced plot summary, fails WP:NOTPLOT. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, the Keep arguments in the last discussion were either not based on policy or did not provide sources that prove notability. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Selective merge to a page about the extended universe of The Matrix, though I'm not sure what that page is. The page is filled with unsourced fancruft, but it's a term that should redirect somewhere. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep no merge target has been suggested, and the article is improved and makes a clear claim of notability. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Extensive coverage in numerous sources including Philosophers Explore The Matrix; The Matrix Revealed: The Theology of the Matrix Trilogy; The New Yorker; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, an article in the New Yorker specifically about the article's subject would be a game decider. But here's what I found: Here, Zion is only mentioned when the action is described; nothing incisive. Here, the only mention is a brief description of it (i.e. "the metal subworld of Zion—caverns and corridors in grim blue and black, as cold and wet as a New York subway tunnel in winter"). And here, in a focused analysis titled "Revisiting The Matrix", there is not one single mention of Zion. The search then disintegrates into irrelevancies such as a New Yorker profile of Cornel West, where it is mentioned in passing that he appeared in two sequels playing "a Zion Elder." It's not easy for me to argue against sentiments of passion and obvious love for the subject but none of this  establishes independent notability, sorry. -The Gnome (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge, cut the in-universe cruft, then maybe split later if something worthwhile can be written about the topic. Regardless of how many scholarly analyses of the Matrix trilogy have been produced, this is still a fictional location about which nothing has been said, at least in this Wikipedia article, but in-universe plot summary. If Andrew Davidson or anyone else want to actually expand the coverage of the real-world background, influence, reception, etc., well ... they can still do that if the article is merged into a larger list about the Matrix universe, and then maybe once enough sourced content (but no OR, please...) has been added it could be split off into its own article in the future. (Although I honestly don't see that happening.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 *  Keep contra Hijiri above, GNG only requires discussion of the topic by published sources independent of the fictional works in question; it does not require coverage of its "real-world background, influence, reception, etc." Let's not slide goalposts around because some editors feel that IDONTLIKEIT trumps SOFIXIT. Newimpartial (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good grief ... you can't be serious, can you? We have other criteria for standalone articles than (a liberal interpretation of) GNG. If you want to GOFIXIT, then fire ahead (at least if you are able, as you seem to claim to be), but don't accuse other editors of not understanding the policy. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of Hijiri's opinion about that, that is a strawman argument. You are refuting Hijiri's statements, not the justification for deleting it, that it has no independent notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your strawman, ZXCVBNM, I see at least a half-dozen published non-primary sources. That is independent notability, per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A half-dozen published non-primary sources, saying what? GNG, which appears to be what you are referring to, is a guideline and not a policy, and it emphasizes significant coverage, which is not the same as simply parroting in-universe plot information gleaned from primary sources. If you seriously do not understand WP:PLOT (which is a policy) and WP:GNG (which you are misquoting and referring to as a policy), then your !vote will almost certainly be discounted by the closer. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice try, Hijiri. NOTPLOT specifies that WP article should not be confined to a summary of plot information, to be appropriate to an encyclopedia. What it certainly does not say, is that only sources discussing "real-world background, influence, reception, etc." count for WP:N, which is what you asserted above. As long as the work is discussed in reliable sources, and that discussion is not limited to summaries or trivial mentions, then it meets GNG. If the resulting article doesn't meet PLOT, then the answer is SOFIXIT. Newimpartial (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If the only sourced content that can be added to the article is plot information, then the topic fails both GNG (a guideline that requires significant coverage) and NOTPLOT (a policy that requires articles on fictional topics include real-world information). I already stated in my initial !vote (which I get the impression you didn't read before jumping in to !vote against) that there is a possibility that sufficient sources exist to create an article that conforms to our policies and guidelines, while you have somehow managed to support keeping despite an apparent belief on your part that such sources don't exist. You can't tell me to SOFIXIT when you yourself are agreeing with me that sufficient sources probably do not exist. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 20:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @Newimpartial, first of all, are you sure you understand the meaning of WP:SOFIXIT, or are you confused by the initials? That guideline is meant to encourage contributors to be bold, and act, in improving or trying to improve Wikipedia, as best as they can, or as they see fit. It is not a command to fix all things wrong! Second, and more importantly, that guideline does not lay the burden of fixing something wrong on the editors who bring that wrong to the community's attention! If the contested article about Zion needs more sources to establish its subject's independent notability, then those who believe in the subject's worthiness should simply get off their ass and try and find some sources (instead of, for example, calling other people "fucking idiots"). I hope you understand. -The Gnome (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And said editors, notably Erik, have done exactly that. But like Hijiri you appear to be mistaking the current quality of an article for its notability. Where at least two independent, reliable sources exist for a topic, notability may be presumed, as in this case, and contra your current WP:BLUDGEON. Newimpartial (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as bludgeoning my point, I already stated I'm taking my leave from the voting process. So, that's DOA. I'm focusing on notability; quality of text is a different issue and it's not by itself a cause for the guillotine. My comments above are quite clear but perhaps you should read them again: "If the contested article about Zion needs more sources to establish its subject's independent notability, then those who believe in the subject's worthiness should simply get off their ass and try and find some sources, instead of, for example, calling other people fucking idiots." So, it's all about sources, see. And, by the way, wikilawyering and insults do not get you far here. Trust me on this. -The Gnome (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to put too fine a point on it, Gnome, but the issue at AfD is the existence of sources, not the inclusion of sources in the article (except for BLP); this aspect is fundamental, and is not "wikilawyering". Also, if you believe that not !voting somehow means that WP:BLUDGEON does not apply, that is a tendentious reading, to put it mildly. Finally, I haven't insulted anyone, here or elsewhere on WP, and don't really see why you would imply that I have. Newimpartial (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's clear that you consider editors who don't argue to keep this article "fucking idiots". I do disagree with such editors' stances, but there is no need for that vitriol. I strongly suggest that you strike this out and focus on content. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not write "fucking idiots" in my comment above; look at the edit history! My comment seems vandalized by a script that changes "trumps" to "fucking idiots"; I will figure out who did that when I have time. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Newimpartial (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize and have struck out my comment. It was a script gone awry. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The script turns "Trump" into "fucking idiot". Some miscreant hacker is out to insult the U.S President, from the looks of it. Where's the Secret Service? :-) The Gnome (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See this older Gawker article about the same problem. Fun browser scripts that change words can cause problems.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * First things first, Newimpartial: I accept you were not responsible for the insults. I accept what Erik's saying. Now, about the article. All you need to do is look at the nomination and the subsequent debate: The article has been brought to the stand on account of it being all plot without sources. And that's what we've been discussing ever since. Andrew D. brought forth a bunch of citations ostensibly showing independent notability. I disagreed. And my point stands: Anyone who wants to FIXIT should go right ahead and FIXIT! No one else is obliged to. End of story. Otherwise, so far, and not to put too fine a point on it, we don't seem to have sources that support independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I continue to disagree. From the current state of the sourcing, it seems to me that the racial politics of Zion (the Matrix) would support a reliably sourced article all on its own. Newimpartial (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for lacking independent notability, for not having notability of its own as a subject. Notability is not contagious. Not everything about a notable subject, e.g. The Matrix, is necessarily notable on its own. -The Gnome (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Erik, for the prompt to look up the contested article one more time. The post-AfD changes made by contributors improve significantly the quality and the extent of information in it. They hardly change its status of significant, independent notability. The most I'd offer as things stand is that, instead of complete deletion, the choice of a Weak Redirect to an appropriate section of the Matrix philology. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The coverage is more than sufficient. WP:GNG says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.... '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 does not need to be the main topic of the source material." It is obvious that there are multiple sources that make more than trivial observations of the setting. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I critiqued some of the proffered sources in my response to Andrew D., above. The rest, such as those offered now in the article, do not IMVHO make the case for a stand-alone article. But I've already taken enough space here. And in view of the discussion deteriorating through the use of insults ("fucking idiots", etc), I'm taking my leave. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This conversation is still ongoing...
 * Keep as a notable setting per WP:GNG since there has been significant coverage from reliable sources focusing on Zion. I've removed the garbage in-universe content and have added a few sourced observations about Zion to the article. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To update, the book Apocalyptic Transformation: Apocalypse and the Postmodern Imagination analyzes Zion and its people in some additional ways. Others are welcome to expand on the Wikipedia article with this source and others. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep now that has addressed the main issues. Otherwise I would support merging and making the page a redirect, but this content (which seems to pass WP:GNG) is much better suited to being on its own page. &#8209;&#8209; Yodin T 14:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can the editors, , , and please review the article in its current condition? The in-universe content has been replaced with out-of-universe content, and this is not the extent of the sources used. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to The Matrix (franchise). Part of a larger fictional work, should be treated in context.  Sandstein   17:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We would not merge a film article to its franchise article to put it in context. How big does a fictional city's article have to be to warrant standing alone? A general "Influences and interpretations" section can discuss many elements in brief, but a stand-alone article can explore a character, a setting, or a theme in depth. There is bound to be redundancy, but the difference in scope allows for greater focus on the given element. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete. Argument By Checklist is a piss-poor excuse for keeping, when the items on the checklist are so minor. Nothing would be lost by leaving in the main article. --Calton | Talk 17:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Yodin. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep As written, it's a bit stubby, but it does indicate that the fictional setting has been discussed in film criticism. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep RS are sufficient, GNG is met, the rest of the haggling is not particularly relevant, except that per WP:ATD-M if not kept, it should be merged into a reasonable target. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2018 (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.