704:
I have added references from secondary sources, hopefully showing that there is already a bit of content which is treated in academic sources and therefore is not "Fancruft". As my efforts of improvement have been cut short in other discussions recently, I am not motivated to put more work into this
549:
in the first movie, but something quite different in the later ones. And a number of conclusions about the agents drawn in the secondary sources can only be drawn when looking at them as a group, like e.g. them being a representation of white supremacists. So a combined article would constantly have
797:
would not create a new and better version yourself, and noone else would for the time being (a likely scenario), we would have none. How is not having an article better for
Knowledge than having this imperfect article? Or, third point, why not keep this article until you or someone else willing has
849:
More specifically to what you wrote, I think Fandom is great, I am happy that there is an indepth article, and I think such an article there should have more plot summary than the
Knowledge article. But we are not here to discuss the values of Fandom, we are here to make Knowledge better.
731:, per Piotrus). Could there be enough info to create an entire well sourced article? Maybe, but it's better off starting from scratch. There's hardly anything salvageable in the current incarnation, much like the deleted previous versions of the (in-universe) Matrix.
460:
437:
specifically (the importance of that character is undoubted), but many also deal with the agents as a group. (If other individual agents may be "non-notable and forgettable" is not the major issue here, as the article is about the agents
1038:: Why would anyone vandalize a useful section of the page, and for the vandalism to go unnoticed for an extended period of time, is beyond me. Anyway, nominator has withdrawn the AfD request, so this discussion should be closed asap.
671:. I think I lokked into this a while ago. The issue is that the topic is likely notable, due to some scholarly sources analyzing the concept of the agent a stereotypical man-in-black government worker but our current article is pure
221:
510:(as well as some articles you explicitly cited). I just don't see a reason why we need an article on the Agents as a group and Agent Smith separately as a character when surely this would be best taken together? –
88:
313:
1137:
I withdraw my nom due to the discovery of the
Analysis section, it appears the fancruft nature of the article was due to vandalism-ish actions. The current state of the article seems much more encyclopedic.
1094:
as a notable topic. I had added an "Analysis" section some time ago to reflect the notability, and it looks like some fancruft-loving IP editor removed it and inserted excessive in-universe information.
1019:, but given the reasonings provided by other users like Daranios and Piotrus, there should be no prejudice for the article to be recreated once a proper development and reception section is drafted in.
877:
a start, but I meant that we need to write a proper section in reception, scholarly analysis. For now, the article is still TNT-able. For start, we should remove all that unreferenced fancruft. --
901:
I agree that a reception section would be a good idea. Please don't hesitate to go for it and create one! For the other thing, "Fancruft" in itself is not argument for deletion, much less for
824:. I go to FANDOM for indepth, in-universe descriptions of fictional minutia. Given that the Agents are described in exacting detail elsewhere I don't see the harm of letting this article go.
289:
485:, it at least proves that the subject is treated in academic sources. So at least some plot summary should be merged into the suggested target article, where it is as yet absent.
554:
Agent Smith. That would make the article less readable and concise. On the other hand, what's the drawback of having two articles? Sure there will be some duplication, but as
182:
215:
83:
972:: There are good academic sources here. The subject is notable, and Daranios has added reliable sources to the article. Talk of TNT is a clear overreaction. —
913:: "If the user comes across fancruft, an approach is to assume that the article or topic can be improved." If I am mistaken, please point out which part of
337:
129:
114:
989:: article is severely lacking in sources in some places. Is Sparknotes even a reliable source? But there's clear sustained coverage here to meet the
155:
150:
159:
636:
771:
I don't know about create, but I'd certainly be willing to check the draft for notability and approve it if someone wished to create one.
430:
142:
1171:
1150:
1129:
1108:
1086:
1047:
1030:
1006:
981:
962:
926:
889:
859:
837:
815:
784:
766:
744:
722:
695:
663:
642:
598:
567:
525:
494:
417:
394:
385:- I concur with the nom's analysis, but it is a reasonable redirect to the appropriate section on the main article for the franchise.
373:
353:
329:
305:
281:
67:
425:
The arguments brought up only refer to the current state of the article. Did the nominator (or anyone else so far) actually do a
1016:
236:
109:
102:
17:
617:- This is another declaration of subjective importance. The only policy mentioned is GNG, but given rationales pertaining to
369:
203:
433:
alone already gives numerous sources, which provide both plot summary and analysis. Sure, some of that content is about
365:
472:
448:
123:
119:
53:
1077:
to have a look at it and consider, if that, together with the other secondary sources, doesn't change their opinion.
474:
give us plot summary, definitions of the agents as a group, as well as bits of analysis. Do I need to enumerate more?
753:
would apply to the article in its current state? Or, if you think starting from scratch would be better, would you,
1104:
941:
550:
to explain what refers to Agent Smith, what to the agents as a group including Agent Smith and what to the agents
197:
1188:
820:
If someone just wanted an all-plot summary of what an Agent is they'd be better served by going to their article
594:
459:: the agents as representing white supremacists (ideas of that are already in the article, though unreferenced);
40:
631:
466:
193:
146:
63:
713:, who seem to be more bothered by the current state of the article than me, to start a reception section.
382:
1184:
659:
589:
which states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
243:
36:
1167:
590:
654:. The articles main topic may be different but still have significant coverage of this subject, imv
624:, even that's questionable. These nominations need better quality control and criteria enforcement.
1117:
994:
977:
626:
390:
229:
585:. As that article does not cover this yet, there is clearly scope for improvement per our policy
1082:
1062:
1002:
922:
906:
855:
811:
762:
718:
672:
563:
555:
546:
490:
138:
73:
57:
463:
1144:
1125:
883:
831:
778:
738:
689:
541:"surely" the best solution. I think it would be worse than treating them separately, because:
347:
323:
299:
275:
265:
209:
98:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1183:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1043:
1026:
655:
469:
426:
1163:
618:
260:
series. However, the other agents are non-notable and forgettable, and this article fails
1065:, it features four additional secondary sources not yet discussed here. I ask especially
506:
As you said, a lot of those articles in the Google
Scholar search are actually hits for
1100:
973:
953:
386:
1159:
1078:
998:
990:
918:
914:
902:
851:
843:
807:
802:
delete and replace this article, rather than the other way round? We are all here to
790:
758:
750:
728:
714:
680:
676:
651:
586:
559:
517:
501:
486:
482:
409:
261:
705:
at this time. As most secondary sources listed above are freely available, I invite
1140:
1121:
1074:
1066:
896:
879:
827:
774:
754:
734:
710:
706:
685:
582:
343:
319:
295:
271:
749:
Given the fact that some sections are based on reliable sources, what instance of
176:
1061:
an "Analysis" section in the past, which was remove by an anonymous user! I have
997:. Would also accept a merge depending on how the article improves, now or later.
1070:
1039:
1022:
650:
as has reliable sources coverage including scholarly articles, therefore passes
542:
507:
456:
444:
434:
402:. I concur here as well. A redirect would be of better service to our readers. –
253:
1096:
532:
512:
457:
WAKE UP, NEO: WHITE IDENTITY, HEGEMONY, AND CONSCIOUSNESS IN "THE MATRIX"
404:
757:, be willing to create such a new article after this one has blown up?
256:
is definitely noteworthy and memorable, being the main antagonist of
821:
789:
So, what about the first question, which of the reasons given in
429:
search? Because aside from the sources present in the article, a
537:
In my opinion taking the two subjects together can work, but is
314:
list of
Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions
1179:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
944:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
683:
could start a reception section, using sources they found? --
581:
Many sources see the agents as the franchise's version of
447:
deals with the philosophical position the agents are in;
89:
Articles for deletion/Agent (The Matrix) (2nd nomination)
675:(in the form of pure plot summary) that is borderline a
874:
621:
290:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
172:
168:
164:
228:
455:
as an allegory of
Christian Gnosticism or Buddhism;
950:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
727:I still stand by my !delete opinion (but this time
268:fancruft. It is unnecessary FANDOM-level material.
793:would apply in the first place? And secondly, if
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1191:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1073:, who requested a reception section, as well as
545:is a somewhat special but fairly representative
336:Note: This discussion has been included in the
312:Note: This discussion has been included in the
288:Note: This discussion has been included in the
601:
449:Wake up! Gnosticism and Buddhism in The Matrix
1116:If this is kept it really should be moved to
242:
8:
603:Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions...
130:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
445:Trinity as the "Real" Hero of "The Matrix"
335:
311:
287:
806:Knowledge, not impoverish it, aren't we?
338:list of Film-related deletion discussions
84:Articles for deletion/Agent (The Matrix)
798:created the draft of a better one, and
81:
880:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
686:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
451:: the role of the agents when seeing
7:
80:
24:
917:would apply to our subject here.
1017:List of Matrix series characters
115:Introduction to deletion process
1021:Not in favor of delete or TNT.
558:, that's not really a problem.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1162:, and withdrawn by nominator.
481:not be seen as enough to meet
1:
383:The_Matrix_(franchise)#Agents
366:Some Dude From North Carolina
1172:00:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
1151:18:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
1130:16:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
1109:16:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
1087:15:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
1048:03:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
1031:13:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
1007:00:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
993:, and the article has clear
982:02:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
963:19:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
927:08:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
890:01:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
860:22:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
846:. So we should not apply it.
838:16:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
816:16:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
785:12:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
767:12:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
745:11:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
723:11:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
696:06:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
664:23:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
643:19:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
599:12:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
568:07:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
526:01:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
495:11:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
418:02:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
395:00:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
374:17:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
354:15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
330:15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
306:15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
282:15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
68:18:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
1057:: Wow, the article already
105:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1208:
842:Soo... no reason to apply
477:And if all of that should
52:. Nomination withdrawn. (
1181:Please do not modify it.
508:Agent Smith (The Matrix)
32:Please do not modify it.
611:
556:Knowledge is not paper
400:Redirect per Rorshacma
79:AfDs for this article:
679:territory. PS. Maybe
431:Google Scholar search
264:and is an example of
103:Articles for deletion
1118:Agents (The Matrix)
139:Agent (The Matrix)
74:Agent (The Matrix)
1148:
965:
961:
835:
782:
742:
356:
351:
332:
327:
308:
303:
279:
120:Guide to deletion
110:How to contribute
54:non-admin closure
1199:
1139:
960:
958:
951:
949:
947:
945:
900:
886:
826:
773:
733:
692:
639:
634:
629:
609:
536:
524:
515:
505:
416:
407:
342:
318:
294:
270:
247:
246:
232:
180:
162:
100:
60:
34:
1207:
1206:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1189:deletion review
1149:
966:
954:
952:
940:
938:
905:. To quote the
894:
888:
884:
836:
783:
743:
694:
690:
637:
632:
627:
610:
607:
530:
513:
511:
499:
405:
403:
352:
328:
304:
280:
189:
153:
137:
134:
97:
94:
77:
58:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1205:
1203:
1194:
1193:
1175:
1174:
1153:
1138:
1132:
1111:
1089:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1009:
984:
948:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
878:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
847:
825:
772:
732:
699:
698:
684:
666:
645:
612:
605:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
475:
440:
439:
438:collectively.)
420:
397:
376:
358:
357:
341:
333:
317:
309:
293:
269:
252:The character
250:
249:
186:
133:
132:
127:
117:
112:
95:
93:
92:
91:
86:
78:
76:
71:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1204:
1192:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1177:
1176:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1154:
1152:
1146:
1142:
1136:
1133:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1112:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1093:
1090:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
985:
983:
979:
975:
971:
968:
967:
964:
959:
957:
946:
943:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
910:
904:
898:
893:
892:
891:
887:
881:
876:
873:
861:
857:
853:
848:
845:
841:
840:
839:
833:
829:
823:
819:
818:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
796:
792:
788:
787:
786:
780:
776:
770:
769:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
748:
747:
746:
740:
736:
730:
726:
725:
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
703:
702:
701:
700:
697:
693:
687:
682:
678:
674:
670:
667:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
646:
644:
641:
640:
635:
630:
623:
620:
616:
613:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
577:
576:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
548:
544:
540:
534:
529:
528:
527:
523:
521:
516:
509:
503:
498:
497:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
473:
470:
467:
464:
461:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:
436:
432:
428:
424:
421:
419:
415:
413:
408:
401:
398:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
377:
375:
371:
367:
363:
360:
359:
355:
349:
345:
339:
334:
331:
325:
321:
315:
310:
307:
301:
297:
291:
286:
285:
284:
283:
277:
273:
267:
263:
259:
255:
245:
241:
238:
235:
231:
227:
223:
220:
217:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
195:
192:
191:Find sources:
187:
184:
178:
174:
170:
166:
161:
157:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
135:
131:
128:
125:
121:
118:
116:
113:
111:
108:
107:
106:
104:
99:
90:
87:
85:
82:
75:
72:
70:
69:
65:
61:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1180:
1178:
1155:
1134:
1113:
1091:
1058:
1054:
1035:
1012:
1011:
995:WP:POTENTIAL
986:
969:
955:
939:
908:
803:
799:
794:
755:User:Zxcvbnm
711:User:Zxcvbnm
707:User:Piotrus
668:
647:
625:
622:such as this
614:
602:
583:men in black
578:
551:
538:
519:
478:
452:
422:
411:
399:
378:
361:
257:
251:
239:
233:
225:
218:
212:
206:
200:
190:
96:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1156:Speedy Keep
1063:restored it
1036:Speedy Keep
911:put forward
673:WP:FANCRUFT
656:Atlantic306
608:Agent Brown
543:Agent Smith
435:Agent Smith
364:per above.
254:Agent Smith
216:free images
50:speedy keep
1164:Right cite
956:Sandstein
885:reply here
691:reply here
453:The Matrix
443:Examples:
266:WP:ALLPLOT
258:The Matrix
59:KartikeyaS
1185:talk page
974:Toughpigs
822:elsewhere
427:WP:BEFORE
387:Rorshacma
37:talk page
1187:or in a
1158:, meets
1135:Withdraw
1122:★Trekker
1079:Daranios
1013:Redirect
999:Jontesta
942:Relisted
919:Daranios
852:Daranios
808:Daranios
759:Daranios
715:Daranios
681:Daranios
619:WP:LISTN
560:Daranios
502:Daranios
487:Daranios
379:Redirect
183:View log
124:glossary
39:or in a
1141:ZXCVBNM
1114:Comment
1105:contrib
1075:Zxcvbnm
1067:Piotrus
1055:Comment
897:Piotrus
828:ZXCVBNM
804:improve
775:ZXCVBNM
735:ZXCVBNM
669:Comment
344:ZXCVBNM
320:ZXCVBNM
296:ZXCVBNM
272:ZXCVBNM
222:WP refs
210:scholar
156:protect
151:history
101:New to
1160:WP:GNG
1071:Haleth
1040:Haleth
1023:Haleth
991:WP:GNG
915:WP:TNT
907:essay
903:WP:TNT
844:WP:TNT
791:WP:TNT
751:WP:TNT
729:WP:TNT
677:WP:TNT
652:WP:GNG
633:knight
591:Andrew
587:WP:ATD
552:except
483:WP:GNG
362:Delete
262:WP:GNG
194:Google
160:delete
547:Agent
479:still
237:JSTOR
198:books
177:views
169:watch
165:links
16:<
1168:talk
1145:TALK
1126:talk
1101:talk
1097:Erik
1092:Keep
1083:talk
1069:and
1044:talk
1027:talk
1003:talk
987:Keep
978:talk
970:Keep
923:talk
875:It's
856:talk
832:TALK
812:talk
800:then
779:TALK
763:talk
739:TALK
719:talk
709:and
660:talk
648:Keep
638:2149
628:Dark
615:Keep
595:talk
579:Keep
564:talk
520:Talk
491:talk
423:Keep
412:Talk
391:talk
370:talk
348:TALK
324:TALK
300:TALK
276:TALK
230:FENS
204:news
173:logs
147:talk
143:edit
64:talk
1107:)
1059:had
1015:to
909:you
795:you
593:🐉(
539:not
533:MJL
514:MJL
406:MJL
381:to
244:TWL
181:– (
1170:)
1128:)
1103:|
1085:)
1046:)
1029:)
1005:)
980:)
925:)
858:)
814:)
765:)
721:)
662:)
606:—
597:)
566:)
493:)
471:,
468:,
465:,
462:,
393:)
372:)
340:.
316:.
292:.
224:)
175:|
171:|
167:|
163:|
158:|
154:|
149:|
145:|
66:)
56:)
1166:(
1147:)
1143:(
1124:(
1120:.
1099:(
1081:(
1042:(
1025:(
1001:(
976:(
921:(
899::
895:@
882:|
854:(
834:)
830:(
810:(
781:)
777:(
761:(
741:)
737:(
717:(
688:|
658:(
562:(
535::
531:@
522:‐
518:‐
504::
500:@
489:(
414:‐
410:‐
389:(
368:(
350:)
346:(
326:)
322:(
302:)
298:(
278:)
274:(
248:)
240:·
234:·
226:·
219:·
213:·
207:·
201:·
196:(
188:(
185:)
179:)
141:(
126:)
122:(
62:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.