Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raccoon City (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 Keep. If any user wants to merge, trim or "clean up with a chainsaw", well that's an editorial matter. Though if enacted without any kind of consensus, don't be surprised if it's quickly reverted. I'm sure all you lovely people, who give a damn about this article, will work things out. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raccoon City

Nothing but a plot summary. Even though it's the central setting for the games, there doesn't seem to be any out-of-universe info at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The last debate closed in january on the basis that the article "was sourcable". This is the difference between that version and the version today. I don't see an assertion of notability from the sourcing. I'm also suspicious that the source in question even exists. WP:FICT tells us that notability is not inherited (or WP:TOYS, take your pick for a community standard). This seems to be a textbook case of why we ought to be cautious in closing articles on the basis that they will be brought to marginal status over time. A (gated) search of that EGM issue doesn't come up with that article name, just a review of RE that doesn't mention Racoon city. Electron Gaming Mon ~ Electronic Gaming Monthly ~ 2008 January Jan 01 224 in Wilsonweb. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, maybe even speedy keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. One of the most notable fictional locations in video games that also appears in film, in books, even spoofed on Robot Chicken. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this notable outside the game, besides the Robot Chicken spoof, if there are no sources to back up the info? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is also the major setting of two films and numerous novels and comic books (check all of these books and reviews of them, for example). And it's not a one time location in some random game, but in many, many games and yes, I have seen it covered in video game magaines as well. Also, it has considerable reader interest. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The setting of Raccoon City has transcended the video games, and has entered the general pop-culture consciousness. Examples: The Kentucky Kernel [1] took a novel approach in reviewing the Resident Evil (film). The New York Times states Raccoon City is "played, for once, by a proud, undisguised Toronto, complete with CN Tower" [2], in which Toronto City Hall is portrayed as Raccoon City Hall. There is also the aforementioned Robot Chicken parody and the documentary "Beyond Raccoon City: Unearthing 'Resident Evil: Extinction'" [3] which appears on the special edition of Resident Evil: Extinction. Regarding Raccoon City in television commercials, George A. Romero(of the "The Dead" fame) directed a commercial for Resident Evil 2 which depicts the Raccoon City Police Station.[4] To date it is the setting of multiple, games, movies and novels and part of a recognizable and notable international franchise. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm inclined to think that we should build articles from sources, not look for sources in order to justify an article. Not all mentions of the text string "Raccoon City" will amount to significant coverage of the topic. We are sure (as it is a setting in a major VG and film franchise) to see the name bandied about but mere mention does not denote significant coverage. But I think further reminders would serve to be unhelpful so I'll leave it at that and take this one off my watchlist. Protonk (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have begun revising the article further and I encourage Ataru to use the sources he found to help in the effort. Thansk! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited the New York Times source in article. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep — Gathering that this is the 2nd nomination for AfD in six months, along with the article being flagged for rescue, this sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MuZemike (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)'[reply]

Comment While I do support keeping this article, I'd note that the article was flagged for rescue after the AFD nom. [5] I believe Ten Pound Hammer's nom to be in good faith. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Six months is a perfectly reasonable time to ask for some non-trivial sourcing to be added to the article. TPH acted in good faith. If it was 6 days or six weeks, I would be inclined to believe you. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This fictional city transcends the original game media. Raccoon city is almost synonymous of 'zombie apocalipse scenary' in popular culture. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up with a chainsaw and if neccessary merge to the series' article. This does not in any sense transcend Resident Evil (any reference to Raccoon City is an RE reference) and any sources would fit just as well into the series article; let's get this cut down (there's a lot of crap), merged up, and split it if there's so much well-referenced info that it can stand on its own later. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Cleanup or Merge when AMIB doesn't vote Delete, I think that's a pretty good signal that an article shouldn't be deleted. JuJube (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject is perfectly valid, notable and backed up with good refs. Everyking (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Le Grand and Everyking. Plenty of valid info here with proper referencing. GlassCobra 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is a longer article for Libery City from Grand Theft Auto... can't delete this and keep that. - tbone (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alright. I said I wasn't coming back but I guess I lied. I've found the text for the egm reference. Seeing that, as well as the NYT and the USA Today reference (both available free online) convinces me that the coverage in the three reliable secondary sources is trivial. Each is approximately a 1-liner and none are separate from the comment on the movie or game (whichever applies for each article). Raccoon City is no more significant from being mentioned in those reviews than Rura Penthe is for being mentioned in a review of Star Trek VI. I'm not saying that Raccoon City isn't the central location for the series. In its current form, the article could be merged with the RE series article. But I am kind of boggling at the comments here about the soundness of the sourcing and the depth of the coverage. Please read the sources in question. They (EGM, NYT, USAT) no more cover RC than to mention it as the setting for the movies and games. This isn't about inclusion or deletion, per se. It is about applying the spirit of WP:N (and WP:NOT). We may disagree about the guideline itself but as it stand we ought to let the process reflect it. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I seriously doubt this will be a standalone article in two weeks time. Editing will tell. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the decision is to keep, then it would violate the spirit of that decision to edit it down and merge it. Everyking (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since when? A keep AFD has never been a badge of protection against editing and merges. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, seeing as AmiB and I both did a good deal of the editing down. I have no problem with this being deleted or merged. It doesn't have reliable sources, WP:EFFORT is nice but doesn't mean a page meets guidelines. Protonk (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Decently sourced at the moment. HiDrNick! 14:34, 9 July 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.