Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vogon

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vogon

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I've prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " It was deprodded by User:Espresso Addict with edit summary " part of popular culture; featured in 2 novels, radio play, television series, and film", who also removed the {{notability}} with edit summary "Removing notability tag based on hits in Wikipedia Library". I am afraid that being featured in few books and other media does not make a fictional entity notable, and hits in WL are no better than WP:GOOGLEHITS. The article is 99% OR+plot summary, and I am not seeing any sources with WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Popular culture. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Collecting sources: [1], [2], [3] and [4] all have some analysis beyond plot summary: That the Vogons represent/parody the worst of human bureaucracy, middle-managament, and callousness and that Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz is the alter ego of the human Mr. Prosser may have been made rather obvious by Douglas Adams, but is a step beyond what's in the primary sources none-the-less. [5] has only a very small piece of reception, but quite some plot summary which can supplement the primary sources as a reference. [6] has a paragraph the includes the reception by the author. [7] has a multi-page chapter on how the Vogons were translated onto the big screen. And just for the sake of future reference, [8] and [9] contain short or very short non-plot comments. [10] is a side-note of an appearance in popular culture (what already is popular culture of another medium). [11]: One more with short analysis. Daranios (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do tell us if you find anything good, I looked at [2] and [3] and they don't seem to go beyond a plot summary and likely don't meet SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With Hitchikers guide to the galaxy Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the above, [12] and [13] appear appropriate academic treatments. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apppear? Were you able to access their contents? Second one is a... film? Documentary? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios and Jclemens. Vogon also appears in this collection of essays.[14] Archrogue (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nothing much wrong with it. --GwydionM (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy characters as failing WP:GNG, with only trivial coverage. Although frankly, that page needs some massive cleanup itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think we really have a problem with WP:Original research here, as most or all unreferenced content can be verified from the primary sources. The current version of the article has in my view too much plot-summary and almost no analysis, but I think the sources found collectively contain enough material to fullfill the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT, so these are problems that can be solved by normal editing. Daranios (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did any of the sources you found contain content hat meets WP:SIGCOV? The chapter on them translated to the big screen seems more relevant to the entry about that film, I fear. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. The Vogons are an essential satire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolf.turner (talk • contribs) 00:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to which reliable source? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Well, at least [1] says the Hitchhiker's Guide is a novel with an "extensive readership", "is an extended satire on the modern world" and among the subjects of the satire are "especially bureaucrats that are represented through Vogons". Daranios (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does that source elaborate on the idea more than that? I don't think a single mention of them as a satire of bureaucrats helps to establish notability, as it's not "significant" coverage. OliveYouBean (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios If all we have is a fragment of a signle sentence, I can't see how we are anywhere near meeting SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OliveYouBean and Piotrus: There's more than what I've quoted. You can judge the extent yourself by following the link on top, it's from researchgate, so it should be available to everyone. Here, I was not so much arguing with regard to SIGCOV, but showing that Rolf.turner's statement, questioned by Piotrus, is not made up out of thin air. As for SIGCOV, I think we should always judge that with regard to why that guideline exists in the first place. I have started to work the listed secondary sources into the article. I am not finished but have, besides all that has been present before, already accumulated more "than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic". Daranios (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios Fair enough, rescuing > deletion, and the section looks quite good. As long as SIGCOV is met, and now that I look at the new section, this is likely, my concerns are addressed. I think this nomination can be withdrawn. Let's double check with others who experessed some concerns, with the note that the article has been improved since: @OliveYouBean @WngLdr34 @Zxcvbnm _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any other concerns. I wasn't sure how to vote before (which is why I asked the question) but I'm happy to vote keep now based on the recent edits. OliveYouBean (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is notable and the article has been improved since the nomination to address concerns. OliveYouBean (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, as we are discussing an entire fictional species here, and I would attribute any sources on individuals within that species having species characteristics as also being sources about the species. BD2412 T 14:31, 20 December 2022 (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.