Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X-Mansion

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. A reasonable case has been made that the sources are out there. No prejudice against renomination a few months down the line if they aren't found and added. Shimeru 17:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X-Mansion

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional institution which fails WP:GNG. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Claritas § 16:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Check out the Doris Kindersly books, you know the 'Ultimate Guide To Whatever'. Plus, the structure has been around since the 1960s. It has been featured in no less then three major motion pictures, multiple cartoon series, dozens of series, thousands of comic books, who knows how many video games and heck, it's been part of multiple action figure displays. Lots42 (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "Doris Kindersly" book certainly doesn't meet WP:RS, and can't be used to substantiate notability. Claritas § 12:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the Doris books not reliable? Lots42 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to one of teh X-Men articles. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major fictional element of a franchise that's spanned 3 genres (comics, TV, film). There's plenty of discussion of the building: this and this for starters. Since integrating this into any other X-men article might well violate WP:LENGTH despite any efforts at cleanup, it's clear that the best thing to do is to keep such a notable fictional element in its own article. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not independent coverage - it's published by Marvel. There's no genuine notability or significant independent coverage, and per WP:PLOT, Wikipedia isn't for detailed coverage of the plots of works of fiction. We should have plot summaries, and if WP:LENGTH is becoming an issue, the content should go. Claritas § 07:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - highly notable aspect of the X-Men comic book franchise for over 40 years, appearing in all aspects of the media from comics, to television, to film. Same as Baxter Building. BOZ (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But no significant independent coverage in reliable sources.... Claritas § 12:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Artw found some independent sources, so that requirement should now be satisfied. BOZ (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would happier with a few more, TBH (and the second one I added may not qualify as independent). Still, they are certainly out there for the finding. Artw (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

......significant coverage in multiple independent sources is needed. Claritas § 17:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per lack of independent reliable sources. Reyk _YO! 13:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's plenty of independent reliable sources.[1][2] I didn't see any that are substantial, but I didn't look to hard. You have to sort look through the books to find ones that aren't by Marvel, but they exist.[3][4][5] We need someone with Lexis Nexis. There's bound to be articles on the special effects in the movies in offline magazines. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment If this is going to be deleted, I would take a look, for example, at Asteroid M, which is much worse off than this in terms of references, notability, and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S8333631 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is a major comic book landmark. Even if there is not enough reliable third-party sources (though I disagree) I would say this is a case where a concensus can be reached to ignore all rules.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2010 (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.