Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paradigm City

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 merge to The Big O. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm City

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

Article about a non-notable fictional location. There appears to be no adequate coverage of the subject in reliable sources in anything other then passing mention (i.e. simply stating thats where the series takes place is not significant coverage). Google search only turns up fansites, wikipedia mirrors and unreliable sources. The article was previously WP:boldly redirected to The Big O by myself due to that lack of notability, but was reverted by another editor requesting a discussion on the talk page. However due to the small edit history despite the age of the article, I do not believe this will attract an discussion. After thinking about it, I do not believe the article is a likely search term.Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have notified the reverting editor. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and indefinitely protect. Or of the closing admin doesn't want to indefinitely protect, then delete the article and replace it with the redirect. The article fails WP:V as it is based entirely on primary sources and quite possibly contains high amounts of editor-based interpretations and annalists. —Farix (t | c) 23:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Farix. The article seems to be only tenuously grounded in reliable sources, and has zero backing in independent sources. That makes it original research or synthesis at best, with not much prospect for improvement. If the consensus is to redirect it should be deleted first because, as Dandy Sephy has found, the redirect is likely to be reverted when nobody's looking. Reyk _YO! 23:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – allen四names 05:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delelt per thorough search and thought put into what to do with this article. Follow WP:BEFORE, and you'll know what articles to delete, I always say. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough fictional location. Plenty of information that anyone wishing to learn more about the series would be able to read. Nothing gained by deleting it. Dream Focus 08:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it 'notable enough', wheres your evidence or reasoning? The amount of information is neither here nor there when it fails two policies (WP:V, WP:OR) and a guideline (WP:N. Theres nothing gained by keeping it either. Those are pretty weak arguments that you are presenting. Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unnotable fictional location. No significant coverage in any reliable source at all. Wikipedia is still not a fansite, despite some folks claims. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable location in notable work of art. I have added a source. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Big O in a section of one or two paragraphs. Background from primary sources can provide context for full coverage from secondary sources, but a whole article of in-universe information is too excessive and goes against WP:WAF. Erik (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge City to The Big O per Erik et al. Bearian (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful to an understanding of the series. Also more relevant than the average fictional location article, as it is the series' only setting, and the nature of the city matters to the plot. The quality of the article is relatively decent, also. There is some bloat; I just cut about a fifth of the article, and it could perhaps use some more judicious editing. Senix (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice the cut, but unfortunately the issues remain. The entire location section is pure WP:OR for a start. It would be helpful if you could explain why it's 'useful to an understanding'. It's a typical response often given, but never with a real explanation. At what point does the information become relevant as an encyclopedic entry without becoming a fan site (or on a different note, what makes it worthy of an entire article rather then as a brief description in the plot section of the parent article?)? Exactly what makes the information relevant past other articles? Your comparison to other fictional locations is problematic as in all honesty, fictional locations are almost never notable out of universe, and the article certainly doesn't offer suggestion that it is. This is the crux of the matter, if the location is notable, where is the real world discussion of it. Every mention of the city in reliable sources merely mention it as the setting, which is far too trivial to support your suggestion. If you can address this issue, then it will be a different matter. Also,I respectfully disagree about the article quality because i)Too much OR and ii)it reads like a fansite. Dandy Sephy (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2010 (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.