303:
the city so important that it needs to be explained in its own section (including a whole paragraph describing the area outside Ba Sing Se)? Do we need to repeat why Ba Sing Se fell? Do we need a detailed description of the King's Palace and who was allowed in the palace and how the palace contained "numerous ceremonial temples, quarters to house the Kings servants, intricate gardens, and the King's menagerie of rare, exotic animals"? As for sourcing, it would be good if you could tell me how we could source the whole inspiration paragraph of the article, which seems more like just a comparison between the city and real-life structure (instead of describing how the structures "inspired", hence the section name, the creators of the show to make this city). This city
459:
does make such a restriction. Articles can't contain only plot. Although this article does contain more than plot, that information is not specific to this topic, so it doesn't justify an article. There needs to be real world information about Ba Sing Se, such as development and reception, to justify
440:
That's an interesting opinion, but I don't think we are restricted to using a source that covers "real world material". Certainly WP:PLOT doesn't provide any such restriction. As I said, I don't know enough about this topic (Airbender) to have a strong opinion, but I do think you are mistaken about
256:
its government? Remember to keep in mind that a lot of this information is probably described in the many plot summaries throuhout the Avatar articles, as well as the specific Ba Sing Se paragraph in the Earth
Kingdom article. If we trim the useless information, we could easily merge the article into
233:
merge this article, but simply redirected it. That's not the same thing, and calling it a merge is misrepresentation of what took place. Now then, most of the information is sourced or can be. This is a major fictional topic, with too much detail to cover in a parent article. I'd also note that there
255:
How is this topic major? It could be considered that the city itself is a major landmark in the show's fictional universe, but the information presented in the article is practically useless. For instance, do we really need to document all of the locations in the city? Do we really need to describe
302:
Again, the city was an important setting. The government did have an important plot effect on the show. But do we really need a detailed explanation of the government, or could we suffice with one paragraph on the government? And what about the rest of the article? Is the three-ring arrangement of
416:
Actually, the article is nowhere near acceptably sourced. Other articles being poorly sourced is not a reason to save this article. The article doesn't have any secondary sources that discuss the subject. To have a
Knowledge article a subject must have "significant coverage in multiple, reliable,
333:
No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. I am a aware that there is a single secondary source that has real world context, but it concerns Avatar as a whole, not Ba Sing Se. If the merge was never performed, then deleting is allowed. However, deletion cannot be
426:, not content. That is, the article needs to present "Ba Sing Se" from the perspective of the real world, with sources for that. Adding real world info that doesn't actually matter to the understanding of "Ba Sing Se" doesn't help, no matter how good those sources are.
288:
I don't agree with most of what you've labeled "useless". Ba Sing Se is the setting for half a season, give or take, worth of episodes. Details about it are plot significant. Things like its government and so forth are major plot catalysts, not just random
421:
is not a matter of opinion. There are secondary sources or there aren't. The problem with this article isn't inline citation, it's missing quality sources. There's plot and stuff that is only tangentially related. There needs to be sources for real world
351:
Article seems sourced (though mostly primary sources) and seems to meet WP:V quite nicely. WP:N is harder, as it's a call as to if this breakout article is appropriate given the notability of the topic. I'm not sure, but suspect it might be.
152:
redirected) since the information in the article is simply encyclopedic. The information in the article that is referenced is referenced to the show (with one or two exceptions), and a lot of the information could be speculation.
398:. Not a whole lot of sourcing going on there, nor do they really need in-line sourcing as the articles are largely non-controversial. Certainly better sourcing would be better, but the article is well past
366:
What do you mean by "sourced"? There are only 10 sources (7 being from the show) and most of the article is only sourced to number three. In addition, there is a whole section that is unsourced.
148:
I nominated this article for deletion before. In the nomination, a user suggested being bold and merging the article. However, the merge was reverted. I think this article should be deleted (or
80:
75:
234:
was a discussion by the relevant wikiproject prior to this article's creation that formed a consensus to do so. As a note, though, if we do decide to merge it, the proper article would be "
544:
as its WikiProject has done little to save it during this AfD, which causes me to think that they do not care about this article, which may be able to establish notability if it tries. –
474:
Dude. #1 I know nothing about Avatar other than seeing it on TV as I flip past it. #2 My comment was that from WP:V's viewpoint this thing is reasonable sourced. You don't
460:
a
Knowledge article. There is a difference between Knowledge and an Avatar fan wiki. You're of course welcome to contribute to both, but you should keep the two straight.
172:
141:
70:
310:
important to the show, but there is no need to devote a two thousand word article to the topic, when a basic overview and description would suffice.
260:(I do apologize for being misleading by saying I merged the article. In addition, I do agree that if merged it should be merged into
560:
214:
17:
108:
103:
532:
503:
487:
469:
450:
435:
411:
373:
361:
343:
317:
293:
246:
219:
185:
160:
53:
112:
95:
265:
239:
197:
582:
36:
581:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
554:
386:, etc. In fact most articles are that way. I hit "random" 3 times in a row, and the first three were
210:
465:
431:
339:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
546:
528:
499:
483:
446:
407:
369:
357:
313:
270:
205:
181:
156:
99:
378:
So? Not every section _needs_ sourcing to be a reasonable, or even good, article. See
456:
461:
427:
335:
290:
261:
257:
243:
235:
496:
Well, I guess you are right. Either way, this article is still not notable enough.
49:
229:-First off, contrary to what's been claimed in this nomination, the nominator did
129:
418:
524:
479:
442:
403:
353:
91:
59:
417:
secondary sources independent of the topic". Ba Sing Se does not have that.
395:
478:
a cite for every factual statement if that statement is non-controversial
383:
379:
196:, anything sourced and relevant to wherever appropiate (probably
575:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
387:
523:
of the appropriate wikiprojects has been notified of this AfD
391:
136:
125:
121:
117:
81:Articles for deletion/Ba Sing Se (3rd nomination)
76:Articles for deletion/Ba Sing Se (2nd nomination)
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
585:). No further edits should be made to this page.
396:http://en.wikipedia.org/Sunniside%2C_Sunderland
334:performed after a merge for copyright reasons.
173:list of Television-related deletion discussions
8:
171:: This debate has been included in the
68:
388:http://en.wikipedia.org/Onikan_Stadium
7:
392:http://en.wikipedia.org/Richard_Poe
66:
24:
71:Articles for deletion/Ba Sing Se
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
602:
318:23:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
294:22:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
266:Avatar: The Last Airbender
247:21:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
240:Avatar: The Last Airbender
220:20:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
186:04:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
161:03:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
533:15:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
504:12:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
488:14:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
470:23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
451:21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
436:06:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
412:03:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
374:14:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
362:13:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
344:05:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
54:19:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
578:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
65:AfDs for this article:
441:what's needed here.
400:acceptably sourced
566:
218:
188:
176:
593:
580:
563:
557:
552:
549:
502:
372:
316:
273:
208:
184:
177:
167:
159:
139:
133:
115:
44:The result was
34:
601:
600:
596:
595:
594:
592:
591:
590:
589:
583:deletion review
576:
561:
555:
547:
535:
497:
367:
311:
268:
206:Lord Sesshomaru
179:
154:
135:
106:
90:
87:
85:
63:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
599:
597:
588:
587:
570:
568:
567:
537:
536:
518:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
346:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
297:
296:
280:
278:
277:
276:
275:
250:
249:
223:
222:
190:
189:
146:
145:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
62:
57:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
598:
586:
584:
579:
573:
572:
571:
565:
564:
558:
551:
550:
543:
539:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
517:
516:
505:
501:
495:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
472:
471:
467:
463:
458:
454:
453:
452:
448:
444:
439:
438:
437:
433:
429:
425:
420:
415:
414:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
376:
375:
371:
365:
364:
363:
359:
355:
350:
347:
345:
341:
337:
332:
329:
328:
319:
315:
309:
306:
301:
300:
299:
298:
295:
292:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
272:
267:
263:
262:Earth Kingdom
259:
258:Earth Kingdom
254:
253:
252:
251:
248:
245:
241:
237:
236:Earth Kingdom
232:
228:
225:
224:
221:
216:
212:
207:
203:
199:
195:
192:
191:
187:
183:
174:
170:
166:
165:
164:
162:
158:
151:
143:
138:
131:
127:
123:
119:
114:
110:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
88:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
61:
58:
56:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
577:
574:
569:
553:
545:
541:
520:
475:
423:
399:
348:
330:
307:
304:
279:
230:
226:
201:
193:
168:
149:
147:
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
548:thedemonhog
402:as it is.
500:Parent5446
455:Actually,
419:Notability
370:Parent5446
314:Parent5446
289:tidbits.--
271:Parent5446
182:Parent5446
157:Parent5446
92:Ba Sing Se
60:Ba Sing Se
349:Weak keep
274:22:26, 30
462:Jay32183
428:Jay32183
384:Composer
336:Jay32183
305:might be
291:Fyre2387
264:and not
244:Fyre2387
238:", not "
150:at least
142:View log
457:WP:PLOT
424:context
200:) then
109:protect
104:history
50:Keilana
394:, and
380:Singer
331:Delete
202:delete
137:delete
113:delete
562:edits
542:merge
540:Weak
525:Hobit
519:----
480:Hobit
443:Hobit
404:Hobit
354:Hobit
215:edits
194:Merge
140:) – (
130:views
122:watch
118:links
16:<
556:talk
529:talk
484:talk
476:need
466:talk
447:talk
432:talk
408:talk
358:talk
340:talk
242:".--
227:Keep
211:talk
198:here
169:Note
126:logs
100:talk
96:edit
521:One
231:NOT
175:.
559:•
531:)
498:—
486:)
468:)
449:)
434:)
410:)
390:,
382:,
368:—
360:)
342:)
312:—
308:is
269:—
213:•
204:.
180:—
163:*
155:—
128:|
124:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
52:|
48:.
527:(
482:(
464:(
445:(
430:(
406:(
356:(
338:(
217:)
209:(
178:—
144:)
134:(
132:)
94:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.