Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandria Safe-Zone (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 delete as there is not, at this time, a suitable redirect or merge target available in mainspace. If anyone is interested in a userspace copy and actually intends to use it for making a broader scoped article, let me know and that can be done. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Safe-Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article on a fictional location, part of The Walking Dead series (both comic book and TV series). In a previous discussion, six and a half years ago, the outcome was delete. I noticed it has been recreated and I redirected it, but @BOZ: undid it and suggested a merge. My argument remains the same: this fictional location doesn't meet stand-alone notability (WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTINHERITED) and I don't believe there's anything to merge. The bulk of the article is a repetition of in-universe events (WP:NOTPLOT). There's no actual development or reception. The references that are there are reviews of The Walking Dead episodes and not about the fictional place itself, so just passing mentions at best. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete same as last time, no sources, only fan blogs. Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Oaktree b:, while I appreciate your delete vote, the references used currently aren't fan blogs. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no, what I could find was though. I didn't think there was much more would could add to help for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh now I understand. Yes, likewise, I couldn't find any SIGCOV either. Sorry for the confusion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This doesn't meet stand-alone notability without WP:SIGCOV. It looks like this was previously deleted without any significant change to justify creating it again. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Daranios below, or Merge to List of Walking Dead locations (see Draft:Locations of The Walking Dead) as supported by multiple delete voters; the reviews do discuss the location so I believe there is something there worth merging. I don't believe that TV.com, The Daily Telegraph, TheWrap, Forbes, and The A.V. Club are "only fan blogs" somehow? I will spend some time in the coming week looking through other available sources, but it is a lot of work and will take me a few days to do. BOZ (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning delete. I can see a case for having a general article on something like Locations in The Walking Dead, but this has far too much poorly sourced content to even be a merge candidate for such a target. BD2412 T 05:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:BD2412, I got rid of most of the unsourced content if that helps you with a decision to merge the rest. BOZ (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User:BD2412, how is it looking now? BOZ (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose that would not be the worst outcome, but if that is the only location content in the main article, it becomes disproportionate. BD2412 T 21:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @BD2412: If you should still doubt notability of the topic after the recent improvements (which I don't), then maybe the best alternative to deletion would be to merge the current content into a newly created Locations of the Walking Dead after all, with empty sections for other relevant locations for the time being. That would look rather ugly, but as Wikipedia is built up step by step, that would hopefully be remedied in the future. The notability of such a target article should be relatively clear, with a two-page chapter in the book I've found, and the whole books of Locations-Locations of TWD and The World of The Walking Dead about it. (Hmm, I wonder how much on Alexandria specifically is in those...) Daranios (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I would support that. BD2412 T 16:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The "Development and reception" is sourced (and not to blogs!), and is large enough to fullfill WP:WHYN. So no reason to delete. And while the commentary does still not quite balance the plot summary even after the recent trimming, there are more secondary sources with some analysis of this fictional location, like the "Zombies Rise to Power: Survivors Flee Toward the Past" chapter of Race and Gender in Electronic Media: Content, Context, Culture and others. If all of that should still not be seen as enough, I would obviously prefer a merge to deletion. Daranios (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Daranios:, thank you for your input. I did do a quick WP:BEFORE check, and like the source you posted, I believe they're still just passing mentions. That the Alexandria Safe-Zone is used as a metaphor (place of pristine condition in a rapidly decaying world) is to me personally as a fan of TWD interesting, but I don't believe it's enough to merit its own article. @BOZ: was kind of enough to remove the most of the WP:NOTPLOT stuff, including which characters are part of the location and what happened there, but I think we need more third-party independent, reliable coverage on creation, development, inspiration, reception. Passing mentions in scholarly research doesn't help with establishing standalone notability. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Soetermans, if a secondary source has analysis of the symbolic meaning of a topic, even if like in our example it is not overly long, that is not a passing mention in my book. And for significant coverage the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". We now have more content referenced to secondary sources than plot summary based on primary sources. (Sure, the reception section by necessity contains bits of plot summary, too, to make the commentary understandable, but on the other hand the secondary sources suggested by Google scholar and Google books have not yet been exhausted.) So the article fullfills the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:NOTPLOT. Daranios (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge a short summary, with best sources, to List of Walking Dead locations. I looked at the academic source cited by Daranios and it does not seem to meet SIGCOV, all we get, analysis wise, is 1-2 sentences. That's the bottom of the barrer I am afraid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just a reminder, an article can't be merged unless the target article exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to List of Walking Dead locations per Piotr. No WP:SIGCOV. A redirect would allow someone to try expanding this later as an WP:ATD. Jontesta (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jontesta, as I said, an article can't be merged or redirected to a nonexistent article. Do you have a different redirect target? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I have now created a corresponding stub for what I think is a notable parent topic of our article here. Daranios (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Daranios:, that link redirects to a draft. I think a better option right now is to draftify it so you and others can work on it. What do you think? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: Yeah, the stub I had created has in the meantime been deemed not ready for mainspace, and is now at Draft:Locations of The Walking Dead. I still think our topic here merits a stand-alone article. But if there is no consensus for that, draftifying what we have so that it can be used to create a suitable Locations of The Walking Dead article seems the next best option to me. I think all merge opinions should be viewed in that regard, too, as the Locations parent article does again not exist yet, as Liz hat pointed out. Daranios (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable in-universe content. Would be OK with merging to an article about locations in the Walking Dead, but that doesn't seem to exist. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2022 (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.