Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional locations in the Godzilla films

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 delete. Sandstein 19:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional locations in the Godzilla films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:NLIST. I can't find any similar list out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Here's the criterion I apply in this sort of case: as an encyclopedia we should include information that a non-expert wanting to have an informed understanding of a topic should know. For example, anyone wanting an informed understanding of the Superman universe should know who Lex Luthor is and should know about the Daily Planet. However, they don't need to be expert on the Lena Luther Science Explorarium or the Centennial Hotel. The first two are key parts of the Superman mythos, but the second two are story-specific places with no long-term significance to an outsider's understanding of Superman. The same reasoning applies here: most of this list is information that isn't needed by an non-expert wanting to understand the topic of Godzilla. Merge what might be useful into the main article, but the rest can go. RomanSpa (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:LISTN as there are no reliable sources that actually discuss the concept of fictional locations from the franchise as a group or set. While it looks like it is well sourced at a glance, actually looking at those sources show that they are basically just plot summaries or very brief mentions on some of the films in which some of the individual locations appeared in. There is a pretty heavy case of WP:REFBOMBing here as well, as the same handful of sources are being used as inline citations multiple times in a single sentence or paragraph.Rorshacma (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am not currently active on Wikipedia, but I worked on this article a bit in the past when it was PRODed. The person who applied the PROD at that time was sufficiently satisfied with the sources added that he did not pursue an AfD. The above two votes (the first of which seems to be creating his own criteria; the second of which falsely claims there are no reliable sources that discuss the subject beyond plot summary) ignore the fact that this article is well-sourced with reliable, verifiable, secondary sources, which is the criteria by which notability is determined. Some plot summary is to be expected in an article about fictional content, of course, but there are myriad examples in this article that go beyond plot summary, like Ishirō Honda discussing how budget restraints affected the settings, Yoshikuni Igarashi discussing how South Pacific locations reflect allegories of Japanese culture, inconsistencies between the appearances of same settings used in different kaiju films, etc. Also, it's worth noting that the sources used are only just a few available; you'll see I essentially stopped working on the article after Lagos Island after the PROD was pulled. The article can (and should) be improved more, but the fact that it's incomplete isn't a reason for deletion, and there is no deadline for those improvements to be made. The reliable sources added to it so far are satisfactory to establish notability and that the article should not be deleted. — Hunter Kahn 19:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The purpose of the criteria for notability is to identify what might be notable, not what definitively is notable. Your points about verifiability and reliability of sources only create a presumption of notability, not actual notability. This is made abundantly clear at notability, where we are reminded that "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." My comments above on the criteria I apply are not related to verifiability, reliability and so on, they are related to the interpretation of the phrase "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". This is a very broad phrase, and requires common-sense interpretation: my criteria are one such interpretation, because we don't have specific criteria for this sort of fan content. Wikipedia seeks to be discriminating in the information it holds, and the best practical interpretation I can find for this is "information that a non-expert wanting to have an informed understanding of a topic should know". Godzilla is clearly an important fictional creation, and a non-expert seeking understanding of Godzilla clearly needs some understanding of his creation and where he tends to appear. But non-specialists do not need to know about fictional countries like Rolisica or Selgina or wherever. These belong in another Wiki. Our goal in Wikipedia is not to be excessively comprehensive, it is to provide adequate comprehension. RomanSpa (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest, this seems like a very drawn out and tortured way of saying that your personal, subjective opinion is that this article isn't worthy of Wikipedia, despite the presence of coverage in reliable sources. The basis of what belongs here on Wikipedia or doesn't isn't your sole opinion of what "non-specialists do not need to know". — Hunter Kahn 13:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunter Kahn Can you tell us what are our best sources here? Which sources discuss those locations as a group, or talk about the geography of the Godzillaverse? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Piotrus, long time no see. LOL Unfortunately I'm not entirely sure off the top of my head; I'm not able to be as active on Wikipedia these days, and I haven't worked on this specific article for well over a year-and-a-half, and even then it was just edits in response to a PROD. If I get the opportunity to look into the sources and refresh my memory on it I'll let you know. — Hunter Kahn 13:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Godzilla (franchise). There might be enough salvageable to get a minor setting section going, but it appears much of the sourcing is pop culture fluff. TTN (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2021 (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.