Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InGen (3rd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InGen

AfDs for this article:
InGen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable fictional company from the Jurassic Park series. This company does not have any real world notability and has received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. The article does nothing but give a short repeat of the plot of the two books, and make a mild attempt at a "Reception" section using sources taken out of context and that would be far better applied to the main article. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Jurrasic Park - At no point does the article assert the notability of this ficticious company outside of the novel. All of the other souces in this article and elsewhere fail to discuss InGen as the subject matter, merely as a villian or plot element in the Jurrasic Park story. We may as well have an article on Initech. --Millbrooky (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just like last time, the article hangs on the thin thread of the "fictional case studies" source. People found some prospective sources at the end of the last AfD, but those aren't really enough to justify an independent article. I don't have a problem with merging this or redirecting it instead, but that clearly isn't going to happen by itself. In order for us to have an article on this, it should be the subject of significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. I don't see that coverage. Protonk (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Jurassic Park where this fictional company has its notability. Outside JP there is no notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Yup, changed my opinion as I have learned that InGen does indeed have some real world notability as a fictional company. It is used in the curriculum of Colorado University[1] and Washington State University[2]. In light of everything else, it meets WP:GNG for me. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - To Jurassic Park. — neuro(talk) 06:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the fictional universe article Jurassic Park (franchise) 76.66.193.170 (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. this was kept in april, kept again in May--a third nomination the same year is ridiculous and in my opinion should be considered abusive. (the rule should be 6 months after a first keep, and 2 years after a second). In any case, the machinations of this organization are central to the plot as an example of irresponsibility,and have been discussed in most of the many sources discussing the work--and a large number additional are likely to appear due to the authors recent death. In this particular case, it counts not as background, but as a principal character. Anyway, there is in fact not just a single source; but 4 substantial third party independent sources--I find it frankly hypocritical for people to object to articles sourced only to the primary work as unsourced, and then if they are independently sourced, to object anyway even without having actual objections to the sources--just saying they are not enough. I interpret as the determination to reject articles on characters in fiction regardless of sourcing.--a view which is supported by no wikipedia policy, and amounts to IDONTLIKEIT, and the arguments as mere disguises. DGG (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yup,I was wrong here.sorry DGG (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read the sources that were available online and did not see anything that made them noteworthy. The third reference is about how Spielberg created an allusion to King Kong; that InGen was a part of the scene is unimportant and trivial. The fourth reference is a passing blurb. And the second referenece, you seriously consider that a reliable source? ...describe InGen as comparable to another "sleezy organization". refers to BioSyn, InGen's competitor that offed Dennis Nedry a job making this reference an in-universe reference. --Millbrooky (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not hypocritical. Counting sources without reading them critically lead us here. Had we, at the last AfD, just looked at the available sourcing and said "we can't make an encyclopedia article out of this", we would have closed it as delete. I think you need to walk back your claims about fiction AfD's a few steps. I don't appreciate (and I'm sure I can speak for collectonian) having my statements disregarded as cover for "not liking" fictional material. It is possible that fictional subjects just don't see the same kind of coverage that non-fictional subjects do but have heavy editor attention. In other words, everyone can be an expert on Star Trek (just by turning on the tube) without there needing to be third party work on the subject. It may be possible that editors advocating deletion or merging are just trying to suggest that we should build articles from sources. In this case, we have some slim sourcing--that's why we are on AfD3--but most of it covers the topic only tangentially. More to the point, it doesn't cover it in the sense that our summarizing it would present a remotely complete picture of the subject. In order to do that we need to mine and interpret the fictional work. When that becomes the case, we should look to fold the article in to the parent. Protonk (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said any one person was -- I was talking about these nomination in general--but I continue to think using "slim" sourcing as a reason disregards basic policy. Similarly does a requirement that articles must be a "complete" picture of the subject" or that we must "mine and interpret" fictional works--I'd say that interpreting fictional works is exactly what we do not do here. That's OR. We describe them. DGG (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we don't "mine and interpret" works by ourselves. We should demand sources that do it. If a fictional element lacks that sourcing then we have three options merge (or delete)/describe (failing WP:PLOT)/interpret (failing WP:OR). When I say "slim sourcing" I mean just what the guideline means: that something should be the subject for non-trivial coverage by multiple sources if we have an article on it. I can't think of an interpretation of WP:N or WP:V that would lead someone to claim such a threshold is a misreading of those policies and guidelines. Protonk (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/InGen_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1137927668"