Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawgiver (Judge Dredd)

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's no consensus for either keeping or deleting all of these en masse. Individual nominations, perhaps a few at a time, appear advisable to me. Sandstein 21:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawgiver (Judge Dredd)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a mass nomination of Judge Dredd-related articles, all of which are contested PRODs. User:Polisher of Cobwebs de-PROD-ed them, saying "May not be independently notable, but could make a perfectly good redirect. Start an AfD if you really think it should be deleted entirely"...so here we are. None of these have any secondary sources to establish notability. They all consist of 95% (or more) plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT) and just cite the comics themselves (as references for plot points). All are fictional elements of a fictional universe without enough real-world content or significance to stand alone. There is currently a related AfD going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City Block (Judge Dredd). I have no objection to these titles existing as redirects to the parent topic (Judge Dredd), but the content is just 2 dozen articles' worth of plot summary (in one form or another) and the topics aren't suitable for stand-alone articles. And before anyone cries "merge", there's maybe 2 sentences' worth of reliably-sourced, real-world info among the whole lot, so there's nothing worth merging. The Judge Dredd article already contains perfectly good summations of most of the comic universe's elements and plot points, and several of these articles have been marked with some form of notability or plot tag for some time. Frankly I'm surprised none of these have been brought to the chopping block before, as it seems everything but Dredd's badge has somehow been given its own article. The rest of the articles are as follows: IllaZilla (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mega-City One, as a major and quite well-known element of the Dredd universe, may in fact be independently notable, as I observed when I removed the prod. It does not seem like an especially good idea to tie its fate to those of many other Dredd articles, which I agree are about topics that are unlikely to be notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, it's the only article with a secondary source cited, but it appears to just be a mention on some list (the source is paywalled). The mention of the list is the only sentence of real-world coverage in the entire article, and a concise overview of the city is already given at Judge Dredd#Dredd's world. Nothing worth keeping here, though of course no prejudice is intended against anyone taking a crack at writing a new article with secondary sources and real-world coverage. But that would pretty much entail starting from scratch anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you don't sound absolutely sure. If you aren't altogether sure, why nominate the article for deletion? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think it should be deleted. Like I said, it's already concisely covered at Judge Dredd#Dredd's world. Without any additional real-world coverage or secondary sources, there's nothing to justify a stand-alone article. 54K of nothing but plot description isn't worth keeping. Of that I'm sure. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Mega-City One is independently notable, which is not completely implausible, then it would deserve a more detailed article of its own. Have you even looked for sources? They could be used to create a worthwhile article, together with some of the material already in the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did a cursory search of Google News and Google Books and didn't come up with anything promising. What would be needed to show independent notability is secondary sources giving this fictitious city significant coverage, such as discussing its depiction and impact. I don't see anything like that. I also don't see any real-world content via primary sources, such as the writer discussing how he came up with the concept of the "mega city" and turned it into the setting of his stories, or the artist discussing how he chose to depict it. To write a decent article you'd need to find this kind of material, and the existing 54K of plot description would have to be whittled down to a few concise paragraphs or short sections. You can go on saying "it's probably notable" all you want, but that doesn't hold water unless secondary sources actually exist to show notability. I'm skeptical that they do, and haven't found any, but feel free to prove me wrong. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was probably notable, I said it was possibly notable - not at all the same thing. You seem like a fairly competent researcher of pop-culture subjects so I will take your word for it that there's no good evidence of notability, and thus withdraw my objection to including Mega-City One in this mass deletion effort. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The Judge Dredd universe is a rich one and has spawned numerous comic strips, games, movies, books &c. There is at least one encyclopedia devoted to this: A-Z of Judge Dredd: The Complete Encyclopedia from Aaron Aardvark to Zachary Zziiz and the topic gets good coverage in other encyclopedia such as Encyclopedia of Comic Books and Graphic Novels and International Companion Encyclopedia of Children's Literature. Peremptory deletion en masse is therefore inappropriate when our editing policy is to take better care of our material. Warden (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even with secondary works devoted to Judge Dredd or comics in general, it is highly doubtful that significant coverage is given to every element within the Judge Dredd universe such that each element—including fictitious statues and political positions—merits a stand-alone article. You cannot honestly tell me that every single one of these topics meets our inclusion criteria. I am reminded of when there used to be separate articles for every marine, vehicle, and gun from Aliens: Despite the existence of the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual, all of these separate articles did not survive AfD. Yes, the Judge Dredd universe in general has probably received good coverage over the years, but that doesn't mean every element from the universe merits a stand-alone article. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If some particular element seems too thin or slight then our editing policy would be to merge into some higher level article. It seems apparent that you don't know much about the topic and have just gone on this spree on a dare, without following WP:BEFORE. Your own creations are crappy articles like Pitchfork (band) which don't have any sources rather than the 40 sources which Mega-City One has. Please see The Mote and the Beam. Warden (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a load. As I've mentioned elsewhere here, I did conduct a cursory search for sources. I do also have some knowledge of the topic, and no one "dared" me to nominate these articles: I came across them some time ago after tidying up the plot summary of Judge Dredd (film), and with the recent nomination of City Block (Judge Dredd) for deletion (not by me) it seemed prudent to place scrutiny on these other topics as well. Trying to insult me by bringing up an article I worked on 5½ years ago (but did not create, contrary to your assertion) does nothing to address the problems with these articles. Please see WP:OTHERCRAP. I'm not going to dignify such petulance with examples, but do look at anything I've recently created, or the articles I've helped bring up to GA or FA, before you attempt to undermine my credibility by insulting my earliest contributions. WP:PRESERVE advises retaining appropriate content; 2 dozen articles' worth of plot summation is not appropriate content. Yes Mega-City One has 47 citations...and 46 of them are just citations to the comics themselves, to verify plot points. The higher-level articles is Judge Dredd, which already contains a succinct description of the comics' fictional elements and settings, so there's nothing worth merging. There is no use in preserving dozens of pages' worth of in-depth plot recaps. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit Warden, you are sprinkling batshit-crazy in with otherwise reasonable arguments. I don't know if IllaZilla hit a nerve or something, but there is no reason to be such an incredible dick, it just invalidates any sense you were trying to make. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all although this mass deletion makes it a little hard to be thorough. I will keep trying to look for references while this AfD is open, but I am not having luck so far. Mega City One seems to pull up a lot of hits, but most are only coincidental ("mega-city, one") or simple name-checks. No prejudice towards creating redirects. If any/all somehow survive this AfD, I strongly recommend renaming all articles disambiguated with parenthesis from (comics) to (Judge Dredd) for consistency (several are already) and clarity. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all WP is inconsistent over its standards for fictional articles. Redwall and Mortal Engines have had their many articles deleted except for one lead, yet anything from DC comics is seemingly inviolable. Oddly those two, and also Dredd, are UK rather than US. If there is some great policy edict to appear from the heights of Mount Jimbo that we either do or do not do fiction, then that's fine by me. However current practice is far too much about the tastes of individual fanbois with time to kill at AfD, not about any notion of an encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As "inconsistent" as you may find WP's standards relating to fiction, I find it incredible to believe that you could look over all these articles and honestly say that every one of them passes the most basic of WP's fiction-related policies (WP:NOT#PLOT) or the lowest bar of notability (significant coverage in reliable third-party sources). There's a stub article about a fictional statue within a fictional city within a fictional world, for pete's sake. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fictional statue you refer to is a parody of the Statue of Liberty, a rather well-known statue. It has also been part of the Dredd universe for 35 years, pretty much as long as Dredd himself. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Unless the statue has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, it doesn't merit a stand-alone article. There's been a statue of Jebediah Springfield in the middle of town since the very beginning of The Simpsons, but that doesn't mean the statue merits its own article. This argument doesn't address any of the reasons the article was brought to AfD. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all (to allow salvaging material in hindsight) or weak delete (to prevent edit wars over the redirects). Judge Dredd#Dredd's world really does seem to summarize the main points of the fictional world sufficiently, so I agree with the nom that no merger is necessary. The main article section serves also as a good way to develop the topic further with real-world information. From a cursory glance, however, the AfDed articles are exactly what wikipedia frowns upon, i.e. excessive fictional detail. We can just as well lose them completely. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"summarize the main points of the fictional world sufficiently,"

Can you please point me to WP:SUFFICIENT?

We do not have a policy of, "That's enough, now stop". If someone wants to write an article on Dredd's boots through 30 years of a comic, then that's up to them. I would be entirely unsurprised to find that we already have one on Batman's utility belt. There are issues with all the other policies about whether an article is appropriate and competent, even WP:UNDUE about balance within an article, but none of these are based on "We don't need an article on that topic, we have enough already". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Sufficient" refers to the amount of description that should not be exceeded without providing more real-world information, as per WP:NOT#PLOT. With 0% real-world info about the fictional JD world, eight paragraphs of fictional detail are pretty sufficient in my eyes. Compare this to A Song of Ice and Fire#World building and A Song of Ice and Fire#Themes (what I am working on) with currently 27(!!!) paragraphs of 90% real-world information of the fictional world and 10% fictional details yet from third-party sources. Do that with the JD world, and I don't mind seeing one World of Judge Dredd article full of plot. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your point? A Song of Ice and Fire is large, and has many references. Yet if we look at that in detail, it's full of snippets like a photo of Hadrian's Wall and the quite explicit caption "The Wall in the Ice and Fire series was inspired by Hadrian's Wall in the North of England." - which is sheer WP:OR. The only cite for that section is from an interview with George Martin (which some see as reason to delete anyway, being a primary source (although I don't agree)), and that interview merely states, "I like the Wall. So far as I know, it's unique in fantasy." and no more - certainly nothing about Hadrian's Wall.

So are long articles about in-universe detail acceptable provided that they're based on verbose WP:OR, but if they're tersely based on the primary source of the text, the whole article ought to be deleted? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's 0% OR in the ASOIAF article, and the ref for Hadrian's Wall is right beside the image in the prose (ref #49, not just ref #59). As for your last question, a fictional-element article full of OR should be deleted on WP:OR grounds, and a fictional-element article full of primary sources should either be s-merged or deleted on WP:WEIGHT/WP:SIZE grounds. I'd rather not derail this AfD with WP:OTHERSTUFF, so please contact me on my talk page if you'd like to discuss the ASOIAF article further. Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some, delete some: I think that some of these articles have more value that others (for example, City Block does not really add anything to Mega-City One, but the latter article could be improved and would be worth keeping). In general though, I think we all know what would happen if we tried to delete the article on Batman's utility belt on grounds of notability -- there is a double standard here, so my view is keep for the reason given above by Andy Dingley.Richard75 (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone fancy an AfD of Goldmember / Johan van der Smut? Pure unreferenced in-universe coverage. Yet it's Hollywood and part of the Beyoncé Knowles and Britney Spears projects, so it's only surprising it hasn't been nominated as a GA yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If what these articles are lacking is secondary sources and some rewriting, then 7 days is not much time to do it in. Its enough time for one article, but given that there is a whole list of them here I propose a longer deadline. Richard75 (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The articles don't have to be rewritten within the 7-day AfD period, but if it could at least be shown that significant secondary source coverage exists for some of the topics, then those topics could be kept. I didn't have any luck in a cursory search, but anyone with access to better sources is welcome to demonstrate significant coverage for any of these individual topics, and make a case for keeping based on that. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
- I'm all for including articles that can provide a reader a grounding on elements in works of fiction that are mentioned in other articles - multiple other articles. It allows for brevity in those other articles since the same element doesn't have to be covered again and again. However, if an element is of questionable notability or only has in-story references, the article on it should be succinct not dot presented as an in-depth in-story history or RPG supplement. A lot of side articles on works of fiction lose sight of that. And a lot of those articles need to be addressed.
- I'm not sure the list articles need to be deleted. As per above, the off-load repetitive detail from other articles. That said, the entries in the lists should be things that actually need a bit of explanation and crop up in more than one article. "Boot knife" or "Total War" seem unneeded in the lists.
- I'd also say merging into list articles with the above in mind is preferable to just deleting.
- J Greb (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with your comments. It is difficult to comprehend the Dredd universe without a clear notion of what a City Block is, or just how big Mega-City One is intended to be. The trouble is that this AfD (and WP in general) has no means to address your issue of, "a lot of those articles need to be addressed.". Bulk deletion of every related article is a crude substitute that even Dredd might consider heavy-handed. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a succinct description of the major elements of the Judge Dredd stories, found at Judge Dredd#Dredd's world. It explains what Mega-City One is, what City Blocks are, what the other major cities are, etc. etc. We don't need multiple articles to rehash the same material at varying levels of detail, especially if they contain little to no real-world information (inspiration, creative process, artistic design, impact, etc.) and just lay out the comics' stories in-depth. The trouble with "off-loading repetitive detail" to list articles is that they just become dumping grounds for plot-only rehashes. This has been the case with every "list of <insert fictional topic>" article I've encountered. The prevailing attitude seems to be "make a list article to keep the fanboys distracted, and we'll keep the real articles quality". The articles bear this out: There isn't a single sentence of real-world, encyclopedic information in either List of organizations in Judge Dredd or List of technology in Judge Dredd. Nothing about the inspiration, reception, or significance of any of the items listed; It's all just "This thing appears in this comic and does this. This thing appears in that comic and does that." This kind of article is precisely why WP:PLOT and WP:N exist.

Andy, the catch 22 of a mass nomination like this is that all of the articles have the same root problems, so nominating and discussing each individually would be tedious and a waste of everyone's time. Yet as soon as anyone sees a list this long the knee-jerk reaction is something like "you can't delete every article on this topic!" Nevermind that the articles and topics all have the same basic problems (summary-only descriptions, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources) and that there are 171 articles on Judge Dredd (meaning that even if these 28 or so were deleted we'd still have 144 articles about Judge Dredd, 111 of which—by my count—would be about the characters, locations, major storylines, and major elements of the universe). Given the level of coverage already given on WP to the franchise and its major stories and elements, I don't find deleting the comparative handful of articles that most glaringly fail our basic inclusion criteria to be "heavy-handed" or "a crude substitute" for addressing their problems. If insufficient secondary source coverage doesn't exist, that's something no amount of editing can fix. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reject AfD out of hand and ask for some assurance from the nominator that each article has been individually examined to see if it does meet each of the nomination criterion. Otherwise its a case of "I want to delete articles [1 through 100] on the basis that some are plot summary, others unsourced, and various miscellaneous reasons including any or all of the ones listed in deletion policy." Additionally, these articles are dissimilar. Some are locations, some are species, etc. These need to be considered separately. I think there is a much stronger consensus to redirecting or keeping articles that are fixable (which makes this a case for editorial review, not AfD). -- Jelly Soup (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you cannot reject AfDs out of hand. I assure you I looked over each article individually and performed a cursory search for secondary sources as described in WP:BEFORE. I've been actively editing for almost 6 years and have been involved in many AfDs...this ain't my first rodeo. The articles are not dissimilar: They are all about aspects of the same fictional universe and all suffer from the same problems (summary-only descriptions, no evidence of significant secondary source coverage). Simply because they deal with different aspects of the fictional universe does not mean they each need to be considered separately. Most of these are not fixable: As noted above, a lack of significant third-party source coverage is not something that can be fixed through editing. Either the secondary sources exist from which to build a stand-alone article, or they don't. I searched for some and came up empty, and no one has proffered any that offer significant coverage to these individual topics. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong by demonstrating that any of these topics have received significant third-party source coverage such that they should stand alone, but rejecting the entire AfD out of hand does nothing to address the very real and completely valid reasons why these articles were nominated. Why does everyone assume I just pulled this AfD out of my ass? --IllaZilla (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the fine tuning to other editors, but I'll like to point out that 'reject AfD out of hand' is possible and I can cite several cases of same. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the majority of them I think that Mega-City One should be kept, it seems to be the most signifigant. I think Cursed Earth could be kept, but only if it is improved in the near-future. - Another n00b (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close and renom as not quite so big a group nom - It's clear from the discussion above that more than a few of these should be in separate discussions. If consensus is truly there to delete them all, then it shouldn't matter if it's one discussion or 12 or 50. Right? - jc37 20:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As noted several times above, the articles all have the same root problems (summary-only descriptions and no evidence of significant secondary source coverage to meet our inclusion criteria). Having 28 separate discussions would not address these issues any better than a single discussion does, and that many separate discussions would be a big fat waste of time. Can you demonstrate that any of these articles can be fixed to resolve these 2 fundamental problems? If so, then those articles can be reconsidered. If not, there is no point to discussing each individually. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is almost impossible to give any reasonable verdict on so many AfDs where some could be deleted (although, even if it probably isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, the information is correct and useful, so I'd like to see it transwikied somewhere so it isn't lost - at Wikia there is a wiki for British comics, UK comics and Judge Dredd, the last one is the most obvious home but I am unsure how active it is, equally 2000AD are starting their own wiki but I'm not sure what the score would be moving the material there) but some are in line with guidelines (the lists) or a good idea (some of the location ones act as a wrapper for a number of stories, which is along the same line as using lists to contain material that wouldn't support its own article). So, for example Under City (Judge Dredd) is a useful wrapper for a group of stories, some with a similar theme, as can be seen by the fact that they'll be featured in a upcoming tpb (for which I'm sure there will be reviews) and can be sourced through the "A-Z of Judge Dredd" for example, as well as the Mongoose sourcebooks perhaps (and presumably the "City of Dredd" books which are more up to date and comprehensive). tl;dr - some need deleting, some need work, some need merging, those that are deleted or merged need transwiking, and I, for one, can't possibly give a blanket verdict on such a long and varied list. Sorry. (Emperor (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
"Correct and useful" is irrelevant if the material does not meet our inclusion criteria (evidence of significant secondary source coverage). Your hope that some of these topics may be covered in secondary sources at some unknowable point in the future is immaterial; If significant secondary source coverage does not currently exist, then the topics do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Transwiki-ing to Wikia is not WP's business, nor the business of AfD. Any Judge Dredd-ophile is welcome to copy the content to whatever other Wiki they want at any time...whether the content might be interesting to people in other corners of the internet other than Wikipedia is not a deciding factor in whether the content is kept on Wikipedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have merged a number of articles into Mega-City One and Judge (2000 AD), as their subjects did not seem to be notable enough to warrant them having articles all to themselves, but were highly relevant to those two articles. I do not accept the bold claim in the nomination that "before anyone cries "merge", there's maybe 2 sentences' worth of reliably-sourced, real-world info among the whole lot, so there's nothing worth merging." The articles in question are (or were) reliably and extensively sourced, and their contents belong in the two articles I have just linked to. (My view is that those two articles should be kept -- I have given my reasons above.) Richard75 (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I have undone these merges. While improvements are certainly welcome, articles should not be merged or redirected at the eleventh hour of an AfD, as this disrupts the AfD process. If consensus at the close of this AfD is to merge/redirect, then fine, but unless you're the closing admin you should not pre-emptively make that call. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Here is my proposed version of the Mega-City One article with some other articles merged into it, which (once WP:CWW has been complied with would, I think, deserve to survive, along with the articles Judge (2000 AD) and Mutants (Judge Dredd storyline) -- I have changed the latter into an article about a story rather than just about an aspect of a fictional world (which was why it was nominated for deletion in its original incarnation). Richard75 (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. Lawgiver (Judge Dredd) has significant coverage in reliable sources, such as Baltimore Afro-American. I don't agree with the mass nomination. See Wikipedia:BUNDLE for more info on the type of articles most appropriate for bundling at AFD. Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not my first rodeo. I followed BUNDLE: The articles are all of a group and have the same problems. The single source you have presented does not appear to be sufficient to pass the notability bar, which is that the subject have received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources (deliberately not a high bar to pass, but a bar nonetheless). A single internet article doesn't cut it (can't tell how significant the coverage is in that article, since it's paywalled). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, find an opportunity within your busy rodeo schedule to thoughtfully reread Wikipedia:BUNDLE, take some time to reflect upon it, and take into account the large amount of feedback you have received here that your bundling of these AFDs has not been helpful. Also, when you find yourself dismissing sources you admit to failing to read, leaving over a dozen comments on an AFD, and being so repetitive in your comments that you are beginning them with the word "again," then it's a good time for you to step away from your filibuster. Unless they've fallen on their head repeatedly during their rodeo career, the closing admin will not need you to continue to repeat your comments ad nauseam 15 more times before they can figure out where you stand on whether these articles you've nominated for deletion ought to be deleted even though you haven't read any of the available sources. Rangoondispenser (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with BUNDLE, thank you very much. Listing 28 articles individually would be a waste of everyone's time, since each nomination would be identical. "If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately". None of these stand on their own merits—They are all summary-only descriptions and bereft of significant secondary source coverage. I did read the source you posted, what is available without paying for a subscription, and since its introduction is basically "remember that cool fictional gun? I'd buy one if it was real", I'm skeptical that its coverage is sufficient to support a stand-alone ariticle. If you've got access to the full article, would you mind describing the level of coverage it gives? Does it go into real-world descriptions such as the idea behind the gun and its impact on the comics and culture? That would be useful to know, but if I can't evaluate the sources merits without getting past a paywall, then neither can anyone else. There is a difference between fillibustering and giving reasoned responses to arguments. As the nominator, and with so many articles on the plate, it's pertinent for me to respond to relevant arguments. Please don't accuse me of not reading sources when (A) I have, to the best of my ability, and (B) you've no basis for that accusation. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"remember that cool fictional gun? " Yes, Lawgiver should probably be merged into List of Judge Dredd's cool fictional guns. However the trouble here is that you've already nominated that list article for deletion too, and there's little scope for a closing admin to go through each and every article and apply their own judgement to them (such a case would be inevitable for DRV, as it would be seen as ignoring whatever consensus the AfD did produce). Instead you're pretty much forcing the closer to block vote all as delete or all as keep - which almost always heads to delete, because one clearly non-notable article sticks out far more than one clearly notable article does. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I say you haven't read the sources is because you keep saying you haven't read the sources. Rangoondispenser (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please point specifically to anywhere that I have claimed not to have read the sources. I said above that I read as much of the source as I could without getting past the paywall. Andy, closing admins are supposed to weigh the arguments and judge the consensus. If the arguments/consensus are that a specific couple of these should be kept, the closer is perfectly empowered to keep those while deleting the rest. This kind of thing happens all the time when articles are bundled in an AfD. If all are kept, chances are likely we'll just be back here in a few weeks for 28 separate discussions, and !voters will just moan that they should all have been bundled. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three instances where you say you have not read a source: [1], [2], [3]. It's a great article; you should read it some time. Rangoondispenser (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably read those diffs again, because now, for the fourth time, I'm declaring that I read as much of the source as is viewable without purchasing a subscription to the site. The portion that is viewable for free doesn't strike me as significant coverage. Now, for the second time, I'm asking you: how much coverage does it give? Does it go into real-world descriptions such as the idea behind the gun and its impact on the comics and culture? Since you appear to have access to the full article, it would be prudent to describe the level of coverage it gives the topic. This would go much further towards demonstrating the topic's merits than continually trying to attack my credibility. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining for the fourth time that you have not read this source. I think that's probably clear enough, but feel free to explain it again. Rangoondispenser (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now twice asked you a direct and pertinent question about the source, and twice you have failed to answer it. I think that tells me all I need to know, but feel free to ignore the question again. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete All~~ After giving the matter some consideration, I've decided I agree with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my position to Delete all except Mega-City One and Lawgiver (Judge Dredd) since sources for these now seem to have been provided. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added references to 10 reliable secondary sources, [4] which includes a section that is exclusively about real-world impact.[5] Rangoondispenser (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've easily added references to 5 reliable secondary sources to Mega-City One. [6] Rangoondispenser (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Improper mass nomination, since it is not reasonable to assume that all these articles are of the same level of notability. Some are undoubtedly suitable for merging, but we have to figure that out one at a time. The risk of making wrong decisions is greatly increased when we do this many at a time. I'd suggest look for the ones on the least notable characters, and discussing them first--its normally fairly easy to agree of merges for such articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are all of the same type and suffer the same problems (plot-only descriptions, which is fixable through editing, and lack of available secondary source coverage, which is not). It is therefore reasonable to assume that they are of the same level of notability, given their topics and the lack of secondary sources. As mentioned in the nomination, plot-only content bereft of secondary source coverage is not suitable for merging. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, continuing to bang that drum doesn't make it any more applicable than the first time you started banging it. I get that that is your perspective. And I would guess others do too. At this point, when quite a few have said: split the nom - Why are you opposing it? If you really were looking for consensus... But I'm seriously thinking that perhaps you're not. You appear to be hoping to "push this through" despite many complaints. Which means: Regardless of result, DRV is likely in this discussion's future, regardless of closure, simply because of these concerns of bundling. Abusing the process (which is what this is looking like) is just another way of gaming the system... (Waits for accusations of not presuming good faith.) - jc37 09:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is my (somewhat jaded) expectation that if I had nominated all 28 of these articles individually, there would be an equal number of editors complaining that they should have been bundled together. I have seen editors accused of "abusing the process" for nominating dozens of related articles simultaneously with near-identical nominations, with the accusers complaining that they should have been bundled and discussed as a group. Having 28 separate nominations gives just as much appearance of "gaming the system", as AfD watchers can't be expected to keep up with them all. It's a damned-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't scenario, so I chose the option where I'd only have to take part in 1 discussion rather than 28. Having taken part in both types of AfDs before (single group nom vs. many individual noms), I've seen backlash from both sides and expected to be accused of gaming the system in either case. I decided not to be deterred by those who will attack the method either way. This is why I rebut those who wish to dismiss the AfD outright simply because it involves a number of articles; I entirely expect they would be just as dismissive of 28 individual AfDs, no matter how valid the concerns of the nomination. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than thinking your only options were A) bundle 27 other articles with your Lawgiver (Judge Dredd) AFD, or B) list 28 separate AFDs simultaneously, you could have -- as WP:BUNDLE explains -- C) listed that one Lawgiver (Judge Dredd) AFD to see how it goes. Or, since your expertise on 35-year-old British comics doesn't seem to match your expertise at rodeo-related articles, you could have D) sought help from more knowledgeable other editors, perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. Rangoondispenser (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary so far

Summary so far: After 11 days we appear to have no consensus. As I read the above, three editors (Warden, AndyDingley, and Ragoondispensar) appear to want to keep these articles, four (the nominator and JohnnyMrNinja, sgeureka and PolisherofCobwebs) want to delete everything, and six (JellySoup, JGreb, Anothernoob, jc37, Emperor and I) want to keep some articles and delete or merge other articles, depending on the content of each article. I think we should default to the latter view (although you might say that I would say that...). Can we get an admin to close this yet? Richard75 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be against keeping some and deleting some (obviously where this is chosen appropriately). The problem is that this type of bundled deletion, on articles of this nature, gives no opportunity for such a result. Who gets to choose which are kept and which deleted? Does a closing admin toss a coin? Or does it come down to the admin's choice, which implicitly tends to depend more on the individual admin than on the articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the closing admin reads the discussion and makes a determination on what to keep and what to delete based on the arguments and their weighing of consensus, just like they would on any AfD. That multiple articles are involved in the discussion makes it a little trickier, but doesn't stop the process. It's not an all-or-nothing scenario. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty eight articles, and barely a word so far on which is which to be kept or deleted. That's no different to picking an admin and telling them to choose their favourite handful. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only 2 of the 28 topics for which anyone has demonstrated secondary source coverage to make them more than plot-only articles are Lawgiver and Mega-City One. Hypothetically, if I were the closing admin, those are the ones I'd consider keeping. For the other 26, no one has been adequately rebutted the concerns of the nomination (lack of availability of secondary source coverage, plot-only descriptions). Those are the ones I'd likely delete. We do entrust our admins with decision-making and trust that they possess reasoning skills. No one is picking articles out of a hat here. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about the contents of Category:Judge_Dredd_characters (83 of them, some redirs, some listed here)? How about the other articles and categories under Category:Judge Dredd? (Several dozen more of them) There is only one credible reason to delete any of this content, and that is that it depends overly on in-universe matters described only in the primary sources of the comic strip. Would you suggest that the only article to survive should be Judge Dredd (Super NES video game), because although being a thoroughly inconsequential game on an obsolete platform, physical objects for sale naturally tend to collect more coverage than literature does? That may indeed be a reason to delete - yet Batman's utility belt gets an instant bye past this, just because it's DC comics. The Shrike, again US rather than UK, didn't even survive its AfD but was quietly restored a few weeks later. It's hard to argue against a policy that's so clearly stated as to be against using WP to cover in-universe topics around fiction - yet that's what vast swathes of WP are indeed doing, provided that they're popular with the US fanbois. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles are matters for future AfDs, if necessary. Other stuff does not concern me at this point and is not particularly pertinent to this AfD. If other articles have problems, feel free to deal with them in whatever manner you see fit. It does not change the fact that these articles clearly have problems: I nominated these articles because I glanced through {{Judge Dredd}} and these struck me as the ones most glaring failing NOT#PLOT and least likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (cursory Google searches reinforced my suspicion about the source coverage). If there are more Judge Dredd-related articles, or articles in other topic areas you come across, that have the same problems, feel free to take some sort of action on them. It does not change the validity of this nomination. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth AFD is not a vote, so no need to go about vote-counting. I've provided at least 15 sources for these topics that according to the nominator were all grouped together because there are no sources for any of them. Clearly, nominator and anyone who agreed with them is just plain wrong, and if any of these articles are to be considered for deletion in the future they should be looked at individually. However, maybe the closing admin should relist this for another week with the stipulation that only the nominator can continue discussion. This will ensure that IllaZilla has the last word and hopefully a full opportunity to repeat their comments as many times as they feel necessary. Rangoondispenser (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in my reply to Richard above, I acknowledge that you have demonstrated secondary source coverage for 2 of the nominated topics (Lawgiver and Mega-City One). As I said near the start of the discussion, I have no prejudice against such efforts. However, demonstrating sources for 2 of the nominated articles does not prove that I or anyone else is wrong about the other 26. And please spare us the snark. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want 28 articles to be evaluated separately, do not WP:BUNDLE them. Rangoondispenser (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted them to be evaluated together, since they all had the same issues and are of the same type. That does not preclude different outcomes for individual articles in the bundle. But you already know that. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2012 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawgiver (Judge Dredd)

Lawgiver (Judge Dredd)

Summary so far

zproxy.org