Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) (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 no consensus. Majorly (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate X-Men (story arcs)

)

See

WP:NOT) & "articles focused on describing storylines should be avoided unless significance is established through real world sources". (Thanks to Mrph for the wording.) CovenantD 00:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

speedy keep per previous afd at
Peregrinefisher 00:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I will admit this page needs a makeover. It would be great if we could make it look like
Peregrinefisher 01:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I would suggest nominating that article for deletion since it should go as well. TJ Spyke 01:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - last AfD was in Oct. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Shorten and merge~~. Actually just delete. this is way too crufty to be salvagable. Artw 00:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Why was the article kept the first time anyways? It seemed pretty clear that it should have been merged insteas of kept. TJ Spyke 01:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Upon reading the nomination reason, I was under the impression that each issue had a seperate article. However, it's actually giving quick summaries of all the story arcs on one page (except the last arc) which should be trimmed. Some formatting would probably help improve the article. (Example: List of Heroes graphic novels) fmmarianicolon | Talk 01:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason this can't be in the Ultimate X-Men article, and no reason for there to be an article just to explain the PLOT of some of the comics. TJ Spyke 01:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would really like to see some of the Keep advocates discuss how this article fits in with

WP:NOT#IINFO #7, which is official policy here on Wikipedia. ""Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Until that happens I fail to see any valid reason for keeping it. CovenantD 01:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Look at

Peregrinefisher 02:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Neither the article to which you direct our attention nor your comments address this conflict with policy. I see no sourced analysis, detail on historical significance, etc, etc. CovenantD 02:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the Spider-man page, which is how this page can be if it's fixed instead of deleted: real world context = creators and dates. historical significance = first appearances and deaths. sourced analysis = Notes like "This storyline is continued in the video game.", differnces with the original Spider-man continuity, etc. This is the larger topic that reasonable sized plot summaries can accompany. I agree this page needs work, but it doesn't need to be deleted. It sounds like we're going to disagree on what constitutes a valid larger topic, but I'd like to point out this is just a matter of opinion, not an obvious fail of WP:NOT. -

Peregrinefisher 03:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It's not a fan page, which is where plot summaries like this belong. The important, encyclopedic info is already covered in the Ultimate X-Men article. - Lex 07:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comic book trivia belongs in a comic book wiki. Totally in-universe, unreferenced cruft that makes no sense to anyone besides X-men fans. Tubezone 03:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no need to reconsider the previous AfD outcome. There has to be finality to process. Metamagician3000 04:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blatant failure of WP:NOT, and apparently no desire to rectify the situation. Resolute 04:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as Tubezone says, this is merely comic book trivia. If you're going to have a plot summary or something it should be part of the original article and it should serve to illuminate the subject in question. This article does not and can never explain anything about X-men to the ignorant passer-by. It's just murky, impenetrable fancruft. It should never have survived the 1st AFD. Reyk _YO! 07:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same as mariancolon. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 07:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -
consensus can change. MER-C 07:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - regardless of the first AfD, this is still unsourced - see
WP:NOT guidelines. Crystallina 14:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, no sources to indicate that this is anything but
original research. I also question the closing admin's read of the previous AfD-one person advocated keeping, three merging, and two (including nominator) to delete. That's at most a no consensus, I'm really not clear on how a "keep" was read out of that. Seraphimblade 15:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -
WP is not for plot summaries. - Aagtbdfoua 15:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Unfortunate delete I like the X-Men, but Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. --Will Mak 050389 15:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like it may be deleted before we can fix it, but I fixed the first one to see if anyone cares. See
Peregrinefisher 19:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom. Additionally, the information indicated as shielding from
WP:NOT#IINFO is redundant as most is addressed on Ultimate X-Men proper. Observation with the cited second summary list, the best aspect of that page already exists on its parent. With regard to this page, the same information is on its parent, all be it in a rough state. — J Greb 03:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Redundancy is not a reason for deletion. This page organizes the info in a way that the main page cannot. -

Peregrinefisher 04:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

In and of itself when related to articles, no. However, I was pointing out that the material being used to shield what is essentially an arc by arc summary of the entire run to date from Wiki guides, is, for the most part, duplicated on the parent article. Hence it carries less weight in evaluating this article. If the material was unique, then it would be a strong argument for retention of the article. As it stands, the primary aspect is the summary, the notes do not add enough to outweigh that, even in the revised format of "Tomorrow People" and "Magical". — J Greb 08:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I love comics, so it pains me when I have to support deletion in comics AfDs. But it's justified here. Plot summaries are fine if short and in the body of an already encyclopedic article. Articles that are only about plot summaries are pointless. - Lex 07:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the old format or the new format? Look at the edits over the last two days and see if fix the problem. -

Peregrinefisher 07:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Both. Your edits still fail to address our concerns. - Lex 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is nothing but unnecessary plot summary (fails
WP:WAF). We're not here to recap comics, but instead describe them as artefacts in the real world, something this page completely fails to do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
What part of
Peregrinefisher 08:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The fact that it's sourced to direct observation of the comics. Now it's cited, but the sources are direct observation instead of reliable external sources, per
WP:NOR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually they are called primary sources and are perfectly not OR, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Types_of_source_material and Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's needlessly detailed plot summary. Primary sources are useful when you're establishing uncontroversial facts to support commentary backed by secondary sources. If you're writing an episode guide by watching the episodes or a readers' guide based on reading the work, you're writing original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We fixed the first sections plot so it isn't overly long. Anyway, it sounds like you're confusing interpretation ("Any interpretive claims require secondary sources") and summarization. If you think watching the show or reading the book isn't a valid source for summarization, I guess you think all plot summaries on WP are OR. No wonder you tilt at the cruft windmill, everything would be OR cruft with that def. -
Peregrinefisher 00:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm arguing that this article is utterly useless without intepretation, and interpretation is verboten. Right now, it doesn't offer useful context to any encyclopedic commentary, just unadorned plot summary. People who want to know nothing more than what happens in the comic can read the comic. This is why
WP:FICT counsels merging plot summary to articles with encyclopedic commentary, and redirecting when additional plot detail isn't needed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The comic is a
Peregrinefisher 23:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I agree that some real-world discussion of the Ultimate X-Men series is needed, but I think this article should be regarded as a companion piece of the main Ultimate X-Men article. Real-world discussion about the whole series could go there, while real-world discussion about more specific plot-related issues could go here. The only reason this list is an independent article is its size. I can see in the page history that a couple of editors are working on it right now, so I'm willing to see where they take it.

Oh, btw, I like the new format used in "The Tomorrow People". One other thing - we should avoid duplication. If we do plot outlines here, they should be removed from the main article - just add a blurb like "Main article:

Ultimate X-Men (story arcs)" in the main article. Quack 688 10:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete fails

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information as I believe this article to be plot summaries of the comics listed. Davidpdx 10:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep--Dil 10:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WesleyDodds 11:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Who are we kidding?Akanksha 19:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rather clear violation of
WP:NOT concerning plots of works. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 10:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Quack. -Toptomcat 13:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought we weren't meant to have separate articles that just include plot summaries. Did I miss something ? WMMartin 18:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well, the way the first entry's been tidied up with real-world information is pretty good, that could happen with all the other entries. If the only concern is that we shouldn't have several different x-men articles, we could merge them all into one, I just think the length of that mega-article would be a bit too much. Quack 688 02:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not that different from TV episode summaries. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although the AfD will close soon, I have been working to improve this page over the past four days and would like to add some comments.

Problems do exist with this article. I do agree with many of those who chose "Delete" that this page has a large problem: lots of plot summary and not much else. Worse, it was all from an in-universe point of view. However, I don't believe a large problem means it is an unfixable problem. Peregrinefisher and I have worked toward providing better formatting and less summary in three of the sections: The Tomorrow People, Magical, and Cable. The sections still discuss plot, but we've added references to more real world perspective such as an interview where Robert Kirkman (the current main writer) describes how his perspective on the 90s mainstream Cable affected his choices when introducing the Ultimate version of Cable.
A problem also exists with the main article. The main page for the Ultimate X-Men is now 30kb. According to the Rationale section of
WP:Summary, 30kb is the point where articles start to become lengthy. I know Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball
but I'm going to gamble that the Ultimate X-Men series will not end or be discontinued soon. The article will continue to grow larger when Brian Singer takes over writing, and larger when subsequent changes happen to Ultimate X-Men. Much of the information from the plot section on the main page can be merged to or added to the story arc page. This would leave more space to add additional general information on the main page while putting more detailing information on the story arcs and their creative teams (in a NPOV, out-of-universe style) on a seperate page without leaving either page lengthy.

The page is not unfixable given work and time. Is the page or even these three sections perfect? No. However, making a featured article or a good article takes time.
2006 FIFA World Cup controversies is an example of an article that went from AfD to Good Article status. I know some editors are worried that few improvements happened between the first and current AfD. However, the page history shows that since this AfD started many edits have been made. I personally have worked hard to contribute, and it would not end after the AfD ended. fmmarianicolon | Talk 03:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Well put. Hopefully we will be given time to fix this page. - Peregrine Fisher 08:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral / Comment. The page in its current state is a joke, but could be salvaged like in
WP:WAF. However, redirecting to the main UXM page and adding the relevant info into the "History" section makes more sense, IMHO. —Onomatopoeia 12:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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.