- 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. While there are opposing views to keep or merge, I feel there is more than sufficient weight to close this as "keep", with a recommendation to discuss a potential merge on the talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Spira (Final Fantasy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not notable, mostly made up of primary sources. Lucia Black (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - We have multiple sources that cover the development and creation of the world and it is the perfect place to expand on the very unique Al Bhed language which has a unique Japanese to English conversion system that was referenced in many gaming publications of the era. The details about the worlds inhabitants and places are supposed to be covered here, but the concepts of the Sin, Yu Yevon and other parts of the development that is not covered on the Final Fantasy X (Featured Article) page. Taking a few points from the world's development on the main page and expanding with the other relevant material will make this better. The deletion criteria here is simply a matter of not going by WP:BEFORE and Final Fantasy X Ultimania Ω is just fine as a primary source about the development. What better source is there for the development of the game than a book published by the company about the production and design of the game? Many of the interviews and other sources were in print media and not online. It was also twelve years ago that it was released and despite a second game has just been lacking some proper development. Failing that, I could perform a rush job and try and argue WP:HEY if people disagree. This is an important article and it should be kept; deletion is not clean up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- anyone else? i can't reply to the person above me as per interaction ban. but this doesn't deny that this is primarily by first-party sources (interviews, guidebooks, etc) and none of the third party sources/opinions. unlike Ivalice.Lucia Black (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the appropriate pages as necessary. Sorry Chris, but the article simply isn't notable. Having development history is not the same as having good reception. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there's a well-written article that could be written on this topic. I seem to recall that the game's setting received a fair bit of praise when it was first released and there's probably a fair bit more incoming as the HD version releases in the coming months. I'm confident that a good reception section can be added, it just isn't there yet. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While I do not doubt that it's possible, I would like to see a "show of good faith" that reception exists y'know? I see a lot of situations where people say "this could have a good reception", saving the article; this is typically followed by a long stagnation and eventual relisting. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with New Age Hippie, we can't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST or save the article for the possibility of notability without expansion. If we're going to keep this article, it has to prove notability now. Especially considering the past 2 games already released.Lucia Black (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, the above "keep" comment doesn't have any weight unless significant secondary sources are actually brought to the table.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've found numerous secondary sources about the world and context of FFX including heavy coverage of Spira in Imagined History, Fading Memory: Mastering Narrative in Final Fantasy X in Mechademia Volume 4, 2009 and the usage of Al Bhed in Language policy in the making: an analysis of bilingual gaming activities by Sirpa Leppänen and Arja Piirainen-Marsh that is behind a Springer link.[1] More exists on the religious theme in Electronic Game Research Methodologies: Studying Religious Implications by Bainbridge and Bainbridge in Review of Religious Research Vol. 49, No. 1. (JSTOR).[2] These are only English sources, and many more exist in Japanese which shows secondary and academic sources related to the fictional world of Spira. Now, I need to dig up my texts on the creation of the Al Bhed language and some other aspects, but for a fictional world there is enough reliable sources on its creation, its vision and its execution to warrant inclusion. While some of the details definately need to be worked for Wikipedia's usage, I think I've gotten a good set of additions already done and I'm missing the best Japanese sources simply because I can't translate it well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That you got hits with the word "spira" in a search engine doesn't mean WP:GNG is met. It requires "significant coverage", not just mere mentions. From what I've seen of the content you added, I doubt you can build a notable article out of these.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Major Revision: Virtually the only references used are quotes, and most of the text is unreferenced and written in a rather in-universe style. On top of that, Spira just isn't notable enough to warrant this kind of article without some major condensation. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fancruft that belongs on a Final Fantasy Wikia project, not in an actual online encyclopedia. Interviews with devs discussing game content does not confer notability to the in-world universe itself. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Delete, the article doesn't meet WP:GNG, as there is no significant content from multiple secondary independent sources. The bulk of sources is made of primary and affiliated sources (the game and Squenix companion media), the others (recently added) are at best inconsequential (a mere mention of the word "Spira" and that's it) or purely off topic. One is even unreliable (a self-published fansite).Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Undecided still. On one hand, it looks like a merge candidate, considering much of the info is redundant to the parent articles. On the other hand, some of the precedents , while I find them baffling, are in favor of keeping it. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pok%C3%A9mon_regions - for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pokemon region could be AfD again at a later time with more outside perspective.Lucia Black (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, but so could just about any article. I'm just saying that's the standing consensus at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out. Totes nominated it for deletion. At least this article came as a natural attempt to write an article about a subject; the regions page is simply a repository for articles that weren't strong enough by themselves. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seeing as it's being worked on, I'll wait a bit. This article is comparable to Ivalice. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: Wikipedia is no stranger to articles on significant in-universe fictional concepts; what makes this one significantly different to the rest? If it's the sourcing issues, they can gradually be fixed once someone is bold enough to do so. The way I see it is, currently this article does have its problems, but it is salvagable. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be willing to help out w/ the article on the condition that if we cannot find a significant enough number of resources to make the article notable, we will merge the content to relevant articles. Would that sound fine, Lucia? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can make it notable, great. But secondary sources and development info aren't going to salvage it. That type of info can easily make its way into Final Fantasy X article. But these type of deals usually end in long periods of searching, then neglect.Lucia Black (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in favour of the article's merge; do you really think I would allow it to get away with stagnation if the conditions are not met? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I agree with this if others agree as well.Lucia Black (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is now valuable content in the article, but it is blatantly off-topic as it is about FFX and not Spira itself. I don't see this article getting deleted, but we can set out to merge it into Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2 as soon as the AfD closes.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I agree with the merge. I doubt online sources for this game about the world can easily be found, and book sources are very hard to come by. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With over 20 secondary sources having been added I think this meets N/GNG. I've seen pieces of Final Fantasy X World Guide: Yevon's Dogma and People on the Spira and can confirm that the book is not from Square Enix and is not walkthrough or game guide in any capacity, it says so right on the second page. Final Fantasy X Final Strategy is part game guide with a section on the "Analysis of Spira" in its pages and it is also independent of Square Enix. This combined with Washburn's analysis and Hagan and others all show the world is not only studied, but important for reasons completely independent of actually playing the game. Many more sources exist, there are at least 3 more on Al Bhed's cipher/language creation, at least 4 more interviews and about a dozen academic publications in Japanese, and plenty of coverage in old magazines. This page is not a merge candidate either because the setting is best appreciated on its own page and not cluttering up two featured articles. I got more work to do on this, but I think its already notable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sourcing in the Concept/Creation section and Analysis section are more than sufficient to elevate this past the GNG, but the middle section, all pulling from the primary source, is a bit excessive. That can be trimmed, but there's no reason to otherwise delete. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And a note: I realize many of the early sources are first-party (interviews and materials from Square dev as published by Square) but in such cases, they are on-edge secondary sources since they are transforming information - the ideas they used in designing the game's world. But there are also true secondary sources down in the Analysis, so together, I feel that is sufficient. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although i disagree that this info is "second" party sources due to them being "transforming" but i do believe now that there is at least "efficient" to keep.Lucia Black (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with that comment. The sections Masem mentions indeed provide notable content, but said content is only about the games themselves, and not "Spira" per say. Even if Spira is the world in which the entire game is set, it's a stretch to say that any discussion related to the game can be used to build an article about "Spira". Don't forget that WP:GNG states that sources "must cover the subject directly". See this glaring example: «In Imagined History, Fading Memory: Mastering Narrative in Final Fantasy X, Washburn writes that Final Fantasy X "makes the relationship of memory, history, and the struggle for control of knowledge a central element of both its gameplay and its narrative."» Is this sentence about Spira ? No, it's about Final Fantasy X. Conclusion, Spira is not notable, but the current content is certainly valuable and deserves to be merged where it belongs, at Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2, which are currently deprived of it. I thus invite Masem to update their !vote.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, there is no such thing as "second" party sources. They are either first-party (directly by those involved with the game) or third-party (anyone else). Sources are also determined by being primary (directly talking about the work in detail without any transformation), secondary (talking about the work and making transformative claims like critique or analysis), or tertiary (summarizing the work at a higher level). We require secondary sources to assure that others have explored the concept beyond just reiterating what's obvious in the game, and third-party to show that others besides those involved had interest in it. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you know what a 3rd party source is. "Critique" falls in 3rd party.19:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- There are several different means to assess a source: whether it is independent or dependent, whether it is primary, secondary, or tertiary, and whether it is a first-party or third-party source. Those are all separate measurements. A critique, by definition, is secondary, but it could be first-party (a development giving his own critique on work he did well in the past) or third-party (a game reviewer discussing the world). --MASEM (t) 14:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
then it may have to be cleaned up a bit to remove anything specific to the games, and if the info is greatly reduced, then we merge it. too much in-universe information too.Lucia Black (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Denying the sourcing is an invincible ignorance fallacy, where assertions are made with no consideration of objections for the evidence raised. The fact that multiple reliable and independent sources discuss the game world (Spira) and its mechanics, history, lore and religion are evidence enough for notability. An entire book is dedicated to discussing the world that is not in any aspect a "Game Guide" by itself says a lot about it meeting notability. In whole the number and details covered in third party sources surpass Ivalice, which is a GA. The subject has multiple independent articles covering it and more likely to come in the future; especially since a large portion of the world is being redone and improved for the re-release. And one last thing, this is a case where a split is bad thing because would unbalance two FAs and are intrinsically related, the contents are best appreciated in this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- note: I won't waste my time writing a new comment when the previous one has obviously not been read The sections Masem mentions indeed provide notable content, but said content is only about the games themselves, and not "Spira" per say. Even if Spira is the world in which the entire game is set, it's a stretch to say that any discussion related to the game can be used to build an article about "Spira". Don't forget that WP:GNG states that sources "must cover the subject directly". See this glaring example: «In Imagined History, Fading Memory: Mastering Narrative in Final Fantasy X, Washburn writes that Final Fantasy X "makes the relationship of memory, history, and the struggle for control of knowledge a central element of both its gameplay and its narrative."» Is this sentence about Spira ? No, it's about Final Fantasy X. Conclusion, Spira is not notable, but the current content is certainly valuable and deserves to be merged where it belongs, at Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2, which are currently deprived of it. Additional note: FA articles can still be edited and improved when new sources show up, and since fictional articles have to be primarily based on secondary sources, there is no risk of unbalancing them with secondary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge mainly per Folken. The analysis section of this page is mostly irrelevant to Spira. There's useful information about the development of FFX here, but it should be, easily can be, and largely already is included in the page on FFX. --erachima talk 18:24, 10 October 2013 (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.