Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sentinel in other media

: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 Sentinel (comics). I see that a lot of the argument here is about WP:IPCA which ... is tagged as an essay, so it's not clear whether it can be considered a widely shared opinion to the point of being a guideline/policy or simply one opinion among many. Even if treated as policy/guideline it's not clear that it would justify deletion here; the first line of thought is that one shouldn't split the article when it will be deleted as original research but there is no detailed argument as to why this list is original research and the second that the starter article should have been trimmed first but that does not automatically imply that a spinoff should be deleted if the article wasn't trimmed first (it's also not entirely clear whether the article was actually not trimmed).

The second line of argument is that there is no reason for the article to be split off from the main list as the article hosting it isn't close to the size limits, and that the content should thus be merged back. This argument has not been explicitly contested (Dream Focus's argument allows for the content to be kept in the main topic, Lightburst and Andrew Davidson are mostly contesting the WP:IPCA-based arguments and the nom is making a blank assertion that the content should be got rid off but with little explanation as to why) and has gained some support, and it seems to be (somewhat obliquely) grounded in WP:SIZERULE - which is a guideline. By headcount we are 3+1 merge, 1 delete, 1 redirect, 2+1 keep (the "+1" refers to Dream Focus, who by my reading is open to either outcome) and that plus the aforementioned arguments justifies a merger to satisfy both the arguments in favour of preserving the material in some way and those that it shouldn't take the form of a separate article. Thus, merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

=[[:Sentinel in other media]]=

:{{la|Sentinel in other media}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sentinel_in_other_media Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Sentinel in other media}})

Per WP:IPCA, spinouts like this are not allowed. The information should be pruned, not disposed of in a separate article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep WP:IPCA says clearly that "when "In popular culture" sections grow excessively long they are split into subarticles." and so the nomination's claim that this is "not allowed" seems to be quite false. The title of the page in question might be improved though as it's not clear because Sentinel is a case where extensive disambiguation is required. Andrew D. (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

:*I know it's like talking to a brick wall, but if you read the other parts of it, it says "Don't split the section out if you think it would be likely to get deleted." An article that is almost entirely original research is likely to get deleted._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

:::Andrew, Zxcvbnm's interpretation of IPCA is correct, and either you know it and are deliberately pretending not to, or you don't, which is arguably worse. There's nothing "clear" about your interpretation at all -- in fact one needs to go well out of one's way to extract that interpretation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

::* ZXCVBNM's position is illogical because it is begging the question and a circular argument. He asserts that the article in question ought be deleted because it is not allowed and that it is not allowed because it ought to be deleted. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

:::* There is no need to start Wikilawyering and getting into semantics. I think any typical editor would understand the gist of what I said._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

::::* There's a clear need to try to understand the nomination's reason for deletion as that's what we are supposed to be considering. This is not your typical "in popular culture" spinoff. What it seems to be is part of a large set of articles which cover X-Men in other media. The X-Men is a big franchise and we seem to have numerous articles about their treatment in media besides the original comics. The Sentinels are major recurring antagonists and so it seems sensible that they should be included too. I'm not seeing the problem or the relevance of WP:IPCA. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep either here or the other article. I don't see any reason why it can't stay in the main article. Dream Focus 19:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Redirect Overly detailed lists with information like {{tq|A Sentinel appeared in a Danger Room simulation in Marvel Anime: X-Men.}} are not enough to make an exception to the long-standing "Don't make standalone 'In popular culture' articles". Andrew Davidson misrepresents (deliberately?) what IPCA says above, since before splitting out articles like this meaningless fancrufty mentions are supposed to be trimmed; additionally, Sentinel (comics) isn't even that long -- somewhat more than half the article text appears to currently be devoted to "In other media", and so that should have been trimmed before consensus was sought to create this fork article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

:* WP:IPCA is the basis of the nomination and it is nonsensical in several ways. In the first place, this is not an "in popular culture" article. Such articles take a topic which is not normally considered popular culture, such as Abraham Lincoln, and then focus on the appearance of that person or topic in pop cultural works. So, Abraham Lincoln in popular culture tells us about the appearance of that character in movies such as Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter and Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. The topic in question in this case is a comic book character which is pop culture to start with. It's just a split between their numerous appearances in comics and their appearances in other derivative media based on the comics, such as animations, live-action movies, action figures or whatever. Not the same thing. Andrew D. (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

:::{{tq|The topic in question in this case is a comic book character}} So ... you don't even read the articles before auto-!voting "keep" in AFDs now? A quick glance at the article in question would have revealed that "Sentinel" is not the name of a character. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

:::BTW, your response actually has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote, and is an irrelevant rant about the difference between "in popular culture" and "in other media", which appears to indicate either incompetence to contribute constructively to AFD discussions or deliberate bad-faith trolling. Additionally, the "numerous appearances in comics and their appearances in other derivative media based on the comics" actually indicates an ignorance of the POV problem with some devoted comic book fans insisting that all of these works are adaptations of the comics (which almost no one reads anymore) and virtually everyone else who says that they are basically independent works based on characters that originate in comics but are better known from previous "adaptations" including Saturday morning cartoons, movies, etc. For more information see Talk:Mr. Freeze#"Originally called Mr. Zero" or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character) and the multiple RMs at Talk:Joker (character). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep Andrew D. makes a strong case for "keep". The nomination points to WP:IPCA as a rationale. However I do not see that WP:IPCA states that the subject is not allowed in its present form. Lightburst (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

::{{re|Lightburst}} It says that before splitting the subject off into a subarticle, it should be trimmed first, and only then, if it is still too long, should it be split ({{tq|However, it is important to use caution in splitting out such articles: [...] Attempt to pare the section down first. In some cases, the section is not so much a new article as it is just bloated. In others, the section should be split off, but paring down the section first will help the new article stand on its own.}}). The {{tq|A Sentinel appeared in a Danger Room simulation in Marvel Anime: X-Men.}} example I cited above (which also appears, verbatim, in Sentinel (comics)), as well as the fact that the difference in byte-count between the body of the subarticle and the current text of the main article's "In other media section" is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hijiri88/sandbox&dir=prev&offset=20190729033117&limit=1&action=history about 20,000 vs. about 19,000], is proof that no such trimming was performed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Hijiri88}} It was trimmed, it's just been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sentinel_%28comics%29&type=revision&diff=908286363&oldid=907966349 restored]. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Argento Surfer}} The information appears to have been completely blanked and ported over to the new article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sentinel_(comics)&oldid=907966262#In_other_media] What I meant is that, before the "article split" solution was attempted, the meaningless/crufty {{tq|Obscure X-Men Adaptation A showed Character B reading Document C, which, on a freeze-frame and close read, indicate that Sentinels exist in that adaptation's universe.}}-type mentions should have been trimmed to see if the section was still too long then. I'm not even saying that the section was/is too long to stay in the main article (I don't think that), just that anyone who does think that should have trimmed that content before deciding to split the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge back to Sentinel (comics) (as has already been done) and Delete. There are lots of issues with this article, the most obvious being that "in other Media" implies the reader knows what the primary media is. Readers wouldn't either, because the current version doesn't even link to Sentinel (comics). Plus, the article this was split from isn't anywhere near the lower limit for a size split. I'm not sure what the idea was here. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Merge to Sentinel (comics), per Argento Surfer. The main article isn't nearly large enough to warrant this section being split to a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Merge to Sentinel (comics), per Argento Surfer. Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

: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.