Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InGen (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 No consensus - default to keep. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InGen

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot sections of the Jurassic Park movie and book articles. It has also not improved in the slightest, or shown any notability since its last AFD in April. As such, it is pure duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think there was good cause for renominating this article given how it turned out last time, not long ago. Шизомби (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to recent clear consensus and 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. Major element of one of the most successful novel and movie franchises of all time. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot move to keep an article based on being a verifiable topic with real world importance when it has established no notability, no real world importance, and thus no notability. It, in fact, the reason I am nominating it for deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances in the Jurassic Park movies, books, comics, and video games is notable to many people for many reasons in the real world. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well that that has nothing to do with this discussion and is entirely off-topic. Notability is separate from popularity.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity is an important aspect of notability and few fictional organizations can say they have appeared in notable movies, video games, comic books, and novels. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands upon thousands can claim that, and it does not make them notable, reliable sources do. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look through Google books and so on you will indeed find out of universe commentary on this notable fictional company. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. If it's there, provide a link to something specific instead of the whole internet. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some information can be sourced from such pages as [1]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was in doubt that the subject of the article was in the original novel, Jurrasic Park. Protonk (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a rather interesting one: [2]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

INCREDIBLE!!!! You actually posted your very first potentially reliable source establishing real world notability!!! I should give you a barnstar for that. It's like that moment in "The Miracle Worker". Unfortunately, that reference is very limited in scope, and would constitute about one sentence of notable content, which should go in the Jurassic Park book, film, or franchise article. Now if you can find a bunch more of these, we will enough material for a short article, but otherwise, it doesn't have enough notability for its own article.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you would like to give me a barnstar, it would renew my opinion of you as a nice and open-minded Wikipedia. :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)r[reply]

Keep notable plot element across a series of notable books and films. It is unfortunate no-one has improved the referencing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Flunks WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT in pretty basic ways; it's just snippets of setting and plot from various JP works. Nothing here worth saving, and no real-world context to make it useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fairly obvious fail of WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, see Middle-earth and the offshoot links to regions (Eriador, Gondor, Misty Mountains, Anduin etc etc). If Middle-earth can get away with it, why not others? Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's a huge body of scholarship on Tolkien's works. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
then Keep, Article (given the Middle-earth example) passes WP:NOT#PLOT. This article simply lacks references, but Google shows references to exist on this, as well as Isla Sorna, and Isla Nublar. Articles appear to be notable, they need references, not deletion. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We base these discussions off of the potential best version that the articles could possibly achieve. The best possible version of Middle-earth would contain a large amount of real world information along with a good chunk of plot. As long as they balance out decently, they're fine. This, on the other hand, has no chance for real world information, so it would still just be a single plot summary in its best version. You cannot logically compare two separate articles like that. TTN (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comment and question were in relation to WP:NOT#PLOT. The answer I received made me realize the ~~the~~ true criteria for keeping the article in notability not WP:NOT#PLOT. Given that the article has plenty of references that turn up on a google search, the question, in my mind, of notability is clear, The article can have plenty of references, but these are not yet added. I do not think that the articles about Eriador, Gondor, Misty Mountains, Anduin, Ered Luin, Mithlond, Lindon, Isengard, Saruman, Moria, Arnor, The Shire, Hobbit's, Rivendell, Elrond, Rhovanion, Lothlórien etc etc etc or Greyhawk and its links (Bigby, Eclavdra, Edralve, Gord, Iuz, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl, Boccob, Corellon Larethian etc etc etc) contain a large amount of real world information, Nor do I think they ever will. Note that some of these articles have been about since 2003, so I think it is accepted that they have a valid notability, even though some of the references are somewhat lacking. As to the best version, User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles turned up these references so I think this article, and its siblings have a fine future ahead of them. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can actually show some notable information, you and he have found nothing, and cannot claim to have found anything with any honesty. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; major element of major film/book series. Repeated AfDs are disruptive; if they were made by different editors instead of one editor trying to repeatedly delete the article, that would show some community concern.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced in-universe plot summary/trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not asserted in any way. There are a number of articles that can easily cover anything important related to the in-universe details. TTN (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources cover the subject in significant detail to establish notability. It doesn't concern me that the article plainly violates WP:WAF, that can be edited down. Protonk (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure there may not be outright sources, but the stories, movies etc do exist... you can't say it is not passing WP:V... just WP:RS.I think this is a classic case to ignore the rules.

How does ignoring the rule that wikipedia ought not be a publisher of first instance help us improve the encyclopedia? Protonk (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh...because I feel it's the Acme Corporation to Loonie Toons or the Cyberdyne Systems of Terminator or the Omni Consumer Products of Robocop.... I know I know...stop with the WP:OSE but I'm answering the question that was possed by Protonk.--Pmedema (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it isn't really an OSE argument. I think it is perfectly valid to claim that X company is emblematic for a series. LeGrand has one source that looks kind of interesting above (a chapter from a law textbook using fictional situations as models for court cases). If more pop up I'm sure we won't need to ignore notability rules in order to keep the article. Thanks for replying. Protonk (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's enough commentary on Jurassic Park to make the major fictional organisations etc there notable also. DGG (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As of this writing, the article has no sources (not even primary sources). When this AfD is closed as keep/no consensus it will be the second time we will have avoided deletion on the basis that the article "can be improved". That is a perfectly viable approach and one that helps save plenty of articles. It does, in my opinion, have limits. Hopefully this article will be improved with some marginal sourcing and this will become moot. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Sourcing has begun. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article and its subject have not gotten any less notable than the last stab at deletion, less than three months ago. Given that this AfD violates WP:CONSENSUS ("It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works.") in that there is no evidence of any change in notability or editor opinion, there is no valid justification to take a second attempt at deletion, which it appears will be followed by a third, forth, fifth effort, ad infinitum, when this one fails. Alansohn (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - this has minimal (if any) real-world context, and there's no reason why this needs or even merits an indepedent article. While the information may be encyclopedic and notable within the context of a proper article, encyclopedic information does not automatically "deserve" independent articles prima facie. The encyclopedia is better served by keeping the information in one place, presumably the article on the Jurassic Park series. A split should only be warranted where the information has metastasized sufficiently to allow for a large enough and coherent article which otherwise meets our basic requirements (namely real-world context). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:N and WP:NOT, more exposition of this argument in my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isla Sorna (2nd nomination) Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable plot aspect of a very notable movie franchise. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as in-universe, unencyclopedic, per WP:N and WP:NOT. Eusebeus (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability guidelines are totally disputed, out of universe sources have been provided, and see also WP:UNENCYC. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The notability guidelines are totally disputed by Le Roi. He's yet to form any sort of consensus that WP:N is not a useful guideline. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking at the talk page, I see no actual community support for the details of the notability guideline as is, which is why there are numerous proposals for revisions. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You don't see much community support because the status quo doesn't need constant vocal support unless it is called for. When it is called for, the support for the status quo has overwhelmed the opposition. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, the handful following that discussion did not want to go quite that far, but they did disagree wildly about what the actual notability standards are and should be as seen in all of those other proposals. As far as I am concerned, due to the changing nature and seemingly never ending discussions about notability guidelines, I just go by common sense and as such something that appears in one of the most significant fictional franchises, i.e. in multiple movies, multiple games, multiple novels, multiple comics, and as indicated above is in fact referenced in secondary sources as well is notable by any reasonable definition of that word and especially for the purposes of a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So where's your RFC showing a consensus to mark WP:N historical? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Others are already working on RfC on notability (see User:Masem/NoteRFC, for example) and it would probably be best to have one going at a time, no? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Huh. How did we go from an incomplete draft RFC in someone's userspace to "WP:N is totally disputed"? Describing WP:N as disputed is mistaken at best and deceptive at worst. Do not muddy up AFDs with this nonsense. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The combination of the diverse proposals, the drafts for RfCs, the category of editors against notability, the previous attempt at a non-notability guideline, etc. all combined suggest that many, many editors dispute what is and is not notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Do not disrupt AFDs with this. WT:N is the place to propose not using WP:N at all any more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The main thing is that InGen is notable as that term is defined in that it appears in multiple works of fiction, is familiar to millions of people, and can be covered in reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:ITSA, WP:IKNOWIT, what reliable sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        See above; i.e. what resulted in this. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I hate to pop Judge's bubble, but that seems to be a self-published book from lulu.com, an on-demand publisher. I can't find anything on that book outside of the Google excerpt, and the ISBN turns up absolutely nothing. WP:SOURCES demands a bit more than that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        References in published encyclopedias are good enough for me to believe that we can cover it in some manner other than outright deleting it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Mmkay. How is that reference useful for anything but briefly summarizing the plot of Jurassic Park, exactly as we do in the actual article on Jurassic Park? I'm not interested in counting the number of times "InGen" appears in print; I'm interested in references we can use to write this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We can use it to write a sentence at least on how the author's describe InGen, i.e. it seems that they indicate it is comparable to another "sleezy organization", which makes for an out of universe interpretation by someone other than Michael Crichton or Steve Spielberg. We can use sources like this to show that references to the company as receiving the baby T-Rex alludes to other exploitative entrepeneurs displaying King Kong. We can use such references as this to say that Ken Gelder describes InGen as "resolutely secretive, just like the firm in Grisham's novel." All it is is a matter of just going through these various sources and milking them for what we can, but what I am seeing is that it's possible to in fact accomplish such a thing and that outright deletion would only stave off realizing such a possibility. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then why haven't you done that? I'd like to see how you draw these trivial, in-passing mentions in the context of summarizing the plot of JP into an article. Or a paragraph, for that matter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because you keep asking me questions here that is making me reply rather than improve the article. Imagine how much article improvement would be accomplished if so much time was not instead spent talking about whether or not they should be deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Feel free to answer them in the article rather than the AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:NOT#PLOT. It is notable fictional company appearing in the Jurassic Park series of novels and films. The article needs more sources. It would be better to improve this article instead of deleting it. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jurassic Park without prejudice to merging from history - I see a bunch of claims here that just say it is notable without proving it, or that its notability is inherited from the franchise. The fact is that despite our best efforts, all the sources we've found are either from official Jurassic Park sources (books, films, etc) or from self-published sources, neither of which prove notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you check out the section labeled Reception, you'll see a few links to published books.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, I didn't see those. We should keep. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important parts of massively notable film series. GlassCobra 20:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the above participants in this discussion has been determined as a likely ban evading sock account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (again) central element in two best selling books, three (soon to be four) blockbuster movies. BJ^Talk 22:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:PLOT --T-rex 14:58, 19 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.