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. WjBscribe 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoo[edit]

Spoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article recently underwent a Featured Article Review, which defaulted to keep due to an overall lack of consensus (7 keep votes, 6 remove). Technically, it still has its bronze badge. But a content review like FAR cannot address the more fundamental issue—notability—without running in circles (participants tend to presume notability in such discussions). In the review, the article's primary author and defender, wrote "Any subject deserving an article deserves a featured article." But before we can test whether the article deserves to be featured, we must test whether the subject deserves the article. WP:AFD is the most sensible place to do so.

So, does Babylon 5's spoo deserve an article? It doesn't appear to.

1. Fails the general notability guideline. Spoo does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject; the article relies almost entirely on primary sources, roughly divided between the self-published thoughts of Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski and the episodes themselves. There is not one third-party newspaper, book, magazine, or television or radio documentary cited that asserts spoo is notable outside of the 6 out of 110 episodes of Babylon 5 it appeared in, outside of the half-dozen comments Straczynski posted about it to USENET, or outside of fan websites, forums, and blogs—let alone significant coverage. (Some secondary sources are used within the first paragraph of the "Real-world etymology of the word" section, but they refer to random uses of the term spoo that predate and have no demonstrated connection to Babylon 5. In the FAR, several participants voiced their concern over this irrelevant information, but Jeffrey O. Gustafson has refused its removal.)

2. Fails the fiction notability guideline. Due to the lack of third-party sources, the article focuses too much on the fictional aspects and inadequately describes the real-world aspects of the concept—critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, merchandise, etc. Straczynski's posts offer little insight into the real-world aspects, as they are mostly written from the perspective of the fiction.

3. Fails the no original research policy. The article employs original research methods in an attempt to make up for the lack of third-party sources. Wikipedians stringing together and interpreting primary sources that they found in a USENET archive or forum is conducting original research. There is no editorial oversight from credible, professional publishers that indicates that these USENET posts are worthy of anyone's attention. Jimbo Wales himself cited spoo as a "very good example of a specatularly horrible use of original research. This is Wikipedians obsessed with trivia trying to be historians rather than encyclopedists. This should all be nuked from the encyclopedia with extreme prejudice, in my opinion."

(Please resist debating whether USENET posts are "authoritive"—whether we can trust that Straczynski actually made these posts. That debate was beaten to death throughout the recent Featured Article Review, and is unnecessary here.) Punctured Bicycle 08:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article is very cleverly disguised as a notable well written article, but a notable well written article it is not. This is clearly not notable (Would we have an article on Jabba the Hutt pies just because we could write it to a featured standard?) and is so obviously fan cruft it is not funny. You might consider AfD'ing the article in the see also section too, Slurm, which has the same issues. I support the deletion, but it does seem you have a secret vendetta against this article (And possibly Jeffrey O. Gustafson?) by the way you write with such vehemence. In any case, Delete - Cheers, Spawn Man 10:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I don't agree however that all trivial articles should be nuked - I recently saved Cultural depictions of spiders from deletion after I rewrote it completely and now it's a great article. The problem lies with deciding which trivia is notable and which is not. Spawn Man 10:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It's about time we get around to culling the herd of FAs. :-D Nah, not really, although it amuses me this insipid drek has survived this long. --Agamemnon2 11:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FICT. Doesn't seem to be particularly notable even within Babylon 5, with the article itself pretty much admitting this. Apparently it's only ever mentioned in 6 episodes (of a 110-episode show comprising 5 seasons) and only one of those mentions has any bearing on the plot. If anything, it appears more of an in-joke among hardcore fans. Jimbo Wales was right about this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As much as it aches me, Merge to another Babylon 5 article on the grounds of notability (or if it is even too nonnotable for that, at least leave it as a redirect so that other people know what was wrong with it to go from FA to no-longer-existant-as-an article). I have never watched Babylon 5 (therefore I can't tell what notability Spoo has in-universe), but I have been following the FAR discussion with great interest, and the longer it lasted, the more it became clear that Spoo is too non-notable if wikipedia wants to be a general encyclopedia instead of something like this. The notability guidelines for fiction were overhauled recently, and they are still strongly discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability (fiction), so I made a note about this AfD there, as well as notifying User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please stop citing WP:FICT incorrectly—I wrote the current version from the ground up, heh. Deletion is a last resort; this is a fictional article that establishes at least some notability, and should be covered in some form on Wikipedia. As a separate article? Maybe not. As part of a larger article on the fictional universe? Definitely. — Deckiller 12:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please note that the content of WP:FICT is currently being debated, in regards as to what may exist as a separate article. G.A.S 12:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, of course. Spoo is a significant part of the Babylon 5 mythology, and has always played an even more significant role in Babylon 5 fandom. I won't bother to fire off all the similar articles we do keep around here, or silly initialisms in support of its status. It is notable, always has been notable, and is worthy of keeping (if it wasn't, I wouldn't have bothered with it). I believe the only reason the nominator has put this on AfD is because it stubbornly passed FARC. Again. Indeed, the nominator more or less says this. AfD shouldn't be used as a run-around for frustrated FAR reviewers, and deletion is last resort, especially for an article on a subject that is notable, and, sorry folks, remains featured. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I raised the same concerns about notability in the FARC itself, before it passed. Your theory makes no sense. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Punctured Bicycle 13:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never commented on the FAR, nor had I read the article before. Is my want to delete the article invalid? -- Kicking222 17:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or merge into a longer listing of Babylon 5 items. Article seems fairly well referenced, if on an obscure topic. - Mike Rosoft 13:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the second thought, the nominator's arguments do have merit; a merge seems to be a preferable choice. - Mike Rosoft 14:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good grief. It just underwent a FARC. Some people aren't happy with the outcome, so they nominate it for deletion? Oh, that's brilliant. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Here's the real story: In examining the article, I noticed that it lacked evidence of its notability, I expressed this concern in the FARC, I realized that FARC was not the place to address notability concerns, I waited for the FARC to close so there weren't two things going on at once, then I took the article to the place where notability concerns are addressed—AFD. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If you wish to keep, please provide actual arguments in reference to the subject/article. Punctured Bicycle 14:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ignoring the obvious bad feeling between the author and the nominator, this really is awful fancruft. I would be embarrassed to see this on the front page, and that is the lifeblood of any Featured Article. Merge-worthy at best. Calr 14:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should point out that it did appear on the front page, on April 1 2006. DS 14:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has real world notability in the fanfic community and parodies of B5. Classify it as a B5 "race" if you want to get down to it - they are a species of animal after all. Wl219 15:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the subject of the article exists, as proven by the multiple reliable sources. The subject is notable enough that a sizable group of people get worked up about it - that is significant. There is no Wikipedia policy that mandates or even justifies deletion of an article like this. Most of the complaints made by the nominator are questions of writing and content and are not any sort of grounds for deletion and the proper forum for that discussion would be the article's talk page. The nominator seems to be frustrated by an article that they don't enjoy, but Wikipedia is not a battleground for personal disputes. This nomination is a waste of time. Force10 16:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The subject possesses real world notability as an aspect of Babylon 5 about which there is substantial out of universe information. If WP:FICT can be read as requiring its deletion, the problem lies with a lack of clarity in WP:FICT's intentions, not this article. --tjstrf talk 16:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the last three keep !votes All three of the above rguments state that there is real-world notability because Babylon 5 followers care about it. That doesn't mean there's notability; that means there's fandom, which does not mean we need a WP article on the subject. -- Kicking222 17:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - All notability is contextual. Something which is notable to a newspaper reporter may be trivia to a college professor, and visa-versa. Suggesting that something isn't notable just because it is only notable in a certain context misses the point. Georgewilliamherbert 00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to be missing the point. It might be true that spoo is considered a very important and notable aspect of Babylon 5 within the context of the fan community, but "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. . . . Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Punctured Bicycle 01:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You propose deleting on three principles, one of which is notability. You can't counter "your notability argument is in error" with "But! It's also not Verifyable!". They are separate issues. The notability one is (in my opinion) in error, and it's notable in context, a point you implicitly conceded if I interpret you correctly. Separately, I also believe that the [{WP:V]] and WP:OR concerns, while legitimate, are not sufficient to justify deleting the article. Georgewilliamherbert 01:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You never claimed my notability argument is in error. You claimed that Kicking222's rebuttal to the above three keep votes is in error. But you seem to have misunderstood his point. Kicking222 makes the point of distinguishing Wikipedia notability from real life notability; just because people care about this subject in real life doesn't mean Wikipedia should care about it—we only care about what can be verified through reliable, third-party published sources (WP:V). WP:NOTE and WP:FICT echo WP:V's sentiment very closely, so the issues are not as separate as you think. Punctured Bicycle 03:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear Delete What tjstrf said, inverted, viz: the subject possesses no real world notability at all; it is Babylon5cruft about which there is no out of universe information. WP:FICT should certainly be read as supporting its deletion, and the problem lies with fans that place individual preference over the clear and consistent application of policy. A well-reasoned and well-expressed nomination. Eusebeus 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am struck with the comparison to Tribbles in the Star Treck universe... While orignially tribbles appeared in but one eppisode of the original series, and did not play any real role in-universe, they made a huge impact on real world perceptions of the show and quickly became recognizable to non-ST fans as something associated with "Star Treck". Spoo never did. Tribbles rated mention in books about the show, Tribble pillows were sold. They became a cultural phenominon. Spoo never had this sort of impact. It was an obscure reference while the show aired, and it remains obscure. It did not have any impact in either in-universe or real world contexts. Perhaps, one day, it will. Someone, someday may write a book that reminds people about spoo and turns it into something noteworthy. But until that happens, we should not have an article on it. Mere existance is not enough. All that said... I, too, am concerned by the degree of OR in the article. If it is kept, that must be addressed. Blueboar 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge) per the nominator's reasoning. CloudNine 17:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This might even be a strong delete. I never thought I would request the deletion of a deleted article, but the nominator and some of the above commenters hit the nail on the head- there are zero third-party mentions of spoo, except to note that the word "spoo" existed before Babylon 5 (and what does that have to do with anything, anyway?) This is simply fancruft- perhaps it is rather well-written fancruft, but it is fancruft nonetheless. There isn't a single reliable source that discusses this product, and in fact, the only notability even stated within the article is that fans really enjoy discussing it. The fact is that we're talking about a food that was mentioned in six episodes of a television series (and one episode of a DVD spin-off) with no importance to anyone outside of die-hard followers of said series, and I see zero keep arguments above that claim otherwise. -- Kicking222 17:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see why it matters who it's notable to, as long as it's notable to someone. ('Cruft' is stuff the average fan isn't likely to know, but anyone who's seen B5 would know this. It even drives a significant plot point in one of the later seasons.) If anything merge, because it must be covered somewhere, but it's so long and full of information that it would just clog up a list. It's much better on its own. --Masamage ♫ 18:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This argument still doesn't cover the whole "complete lack of third-party, much less reliable third-party, sources" problem. -- Kicking222 18:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a content issue and can be fixed. The nominator's argument is that the subject doesn't deserve an article at all, period, ever. --Masamage ♫ 18:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The nominator's argument is that the subject doesn't deserve an article precisely because of the "complete lack of third-party, much less reliable third-party, sources" problem. That's a notability issue and can only be fixed if significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources can be demonstrated. Punctured Bicycle 05:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources issue has been shot down in a Peer Review, one FAC, and two FARCs, one ending just this week (where it was kept). There supposed problems with the sources simply aren't. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Past reviews have mainly focused on the reliability or authority of the sources already in the article. Here we're focusing on the lack of significant coverage in third-party sources that assert a topic is notable. Punctured Bicycle 05:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jeffrey O. Gustafson's comments here those listed directly above.. TheRealFennShysa 18:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wow, we really need to re-examine the FA criteria...How did this article become FA, when no real notability is established? Its built up from posts from forums and usenet...Corpx 18:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks verifiable, third party sources. Current sources include USENET posts and the like (i.e., primary sources) archived on websites that we have no reason to beleve are particularly independent and reliable. Sandstein 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why are people trying to delete such articles? Just find "proffesional sources and it'll be fixed. Personally its not my sort of thing but the subject possesses real world notability as an aspect of Babylon 5 to people about which there is substantial out of universe information. If WP:FICT can be read as requiring its deletion, the problem lies with a lack of clarity in WP:FICT's intentions, not this article . Just re edit it. learly the nominator doesn't give a damn about peoples hard work ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in no way meaning to sound sarcastic when I say this: If anyone finds "professional" sources (i.e. sources satisfying WP:RS), then please contact me via my talk page, and I will gladly change my above !vote. I'm not so hard-set in my ways that I can't change my mind when presented with new information. Until then, the "out of universe information" is not just uncited, but non-notable. -- Kicking222 19:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Who remembers the Nineties? Remember all the Spoo merchandise, all the Spoo toys, how those cute little spoos captured the popular imagination? No, me neither. We have a fictional food with 7 passing mentions in a TV series with 110 episodes, several TV movies and one spin-off. The alleged plot significance in A Tragedy of Telepaths is not even mentioned in that episode's article. There are no sources indicating out-of-universe importance, just a grab-bag non-B5 usages in violation of WP:NEO. It has not been discussed in any published reference work like The A-Z of Babylon 5. Spice (Star Wars) and Butterbeer are at least the equal of Spoo in terms of notability, but they're both redirects.

• This was/is used as an exemplary article on our fiction guidelines. It's no surprise that Wikipedia has mountains of fancruft when this is what to aim for.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I tell a lie. Spoo is discussed in Dining on Babylon 5. So where are our articles on Hot Jala, Jovian Sunspot, Flarn or Brivari?--Nydas^(Talk) 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Masamage ♫ 20:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of Nydas's comment was not, "These articles don't exist, so neither should the spoo article." It was, "There's a good reason we don't have articles on these other things: Because, just as with spoo, these things are non-notable." Thus, OTHERSTUFF has little (if anything) to do with this. -- Kicking222 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate OTHERSTUFF, it's a fig-leaf for fans wanting to keep their articles whilst deleting equivalents from rival franchises. If we're going to have this, then we should resurrect Blood wine, Spice (Star Wars), Butterbeer etc.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep...it's a featured article, for crying out loud, one that has survived two reviews. Seems to me someone is trying to shop around here...they can't get it unfeatured, so they try and get it deleted.--UsaSatsui 19:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your forum shopping theory holds no water. See my reply to Fang Aili above. If you wish to keep, please make actual arguments in reference to the subject/article. Punctured Bicycle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punctured Bicycle (talk • contribs) 13:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Notability is well established per sources, including - as mentioned above - the fanfic community and parodies of B5; and I too find it interesting that it is so soon up for AfD after successfully passing the challenge presented at the very recent FARC. The issues of content and sourcing can be addressed, so deletion is unwarranted. Dreadstar † 20:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no source in the article about the fanfic community. There is one mention of a spoof in one episode of a fan parody (not parodies), which is trivia at best. So no, notability is not well established per sources. Punctured Bicycle 14:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Issues of content can be dealt with by editing -- but to me, it seems to have sufficient sources, sufficient out-of-universe context, and sufficient notability overall. And for pete's sake, it's a featured article -- has a featured article ever gotten nuked before without being unfeatured? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You must have better reading skills than I do, then, since as I read it this article seems particuliarly uncontaminated by sufficient (or any) out-of-universe context, and sufficient (or any) notability. Eusebeus 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or transwiki an FA article should be somewhere, afterall, it shows quality. Is there a B5 wiki? Perhaps the Wikia Annex? 132.205.44.5 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's already an article at the Babylon 5 wiki. Punctured Bicycle 04:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Looks like there might be a conflict of interest here, coming so close in the heels of a FARC. Maybe renominate in a few weeks if the opinions for deletion are still the same and we can have a more open debate on the matter. MalikCarr 23:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your conflict of interest theory holds no water. See my reply to Fang Aili above. If you wish to keep, please make actual arguments in reference to the subject/article. Punctured Bicycle 04:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First, the nomination references WP:FICT, which very recently underwent a controversial revision and is the subject of real-time intense debate. I would point the closing admin here and here (with apologies for the length of these references; the WP:FICT debate is so hot it requires archiving every few days). Second, even the co-author of the revised WP:FICT guideline (User:Deckiller) has noted above that WP:FICT indicates deletion as a *last resort* and that the guideline has therefore been improperly cited in this nomiation. Third, even if you were to take an extreme deletionist read of the revised WP:FICT and ignore both the controversy surrounding the new guideline as well as the "deletion as last resort" factor, the fact that Spoo has featured recipes in a real-world published cookbook would clearly satisfy the WP:FICT out-of-universe/real-world reference requirement for establishing notability. Fourth, the fact that "Spoo" has been referenced in several other fictional universes/cultural sources as documented in the etymology section of the article indicates that the concept itself is notable from WP's standpoint, so that the strongest argument that you could possibly make here is that the article is too Babylon-5 centric and should be reworked to more strongly emphasize the multi-universe aspect of this fictional concept. But that's an argument for "fix" rather than "delete". In short, I don't see any valid reason based on WP policy/guidelines for this AFD to pass. Fairsing 00:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to your points, 1. I have no idea what the WP:FICT debates are about, but the guideline currently echoes what WP:V says, which is widely accepted official policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. . . . Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. . . . If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." 2. WP:FICT was cited almost word for word and I never eliminated the possibility of reducing the full article to a concise, sourced section within a broader article. 3. Dining on Babylon 5 is a cookbook published by Warner Brothers, the company that owns Babylon 5, so it is not third-party, nor does this single reference represent the significant coverage required of notability. 4. There is one reference to it in Straczynski's own work—not third-party. There is another reference in one episode of a fan parody—trivia at best. Punctured Bicycle 05:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you don't have any idea about the controversey surrounding the newly revised version of WP:FICT is telling. Part of that debate is exactly what qualifies as a "third-party" source (by which I assume you really mean "independent"). Saying that a major publishing conglomerate that happens to be an ip-owner of a work of fiction cannot produce an independent reference *by definition* is one of the points of that debate, for example. Another point in that debate is that WP:SS specifically calls for sub-articles to be split out of a main article for style and readability reasons when the main article gets too long, which the new version of WP:FICT would appear to preclude, so one guideline contradicts the other. Fairsing 00:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep While it's true that a lot of this material might be merged as a section within Babylon 5, Babylon 5 fandom (were it to exist), and even internet meme summary style encourages us to take a section that has grown out of proportion in the main article, and convert it to a separate article. I think that Spoo could be regarded as such a summary article. To quote from WP:FICT, "articles about fictional concepts are notable if they contain substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources", and I believe this article qualifies. To me, the intrinsic notability of spoo comes from the way in which fandom latched on to a minor aspect of the programme, and ran insane with it. I would therefore like to see more citations (and more prose) on the fandom/meme aspect. (There must be articles in Babylon 5 fanzines and TV magazines that have touched on this topic, or one of the several books written about the series - e.g. pp86–88 of The Babylon File are about the spoo in-joke.) However, this is more of a content issue, rather than a cause for deletion. Bluap 00:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently, it doesn't qualify at all. There is very little real-world content of substance, and what is there is derived from unreliable primary sources found through original research. Someone has to actually come forth with substantial, reliable, third-party sources that establish the notability of the subject; presuming that the sources exist somewhere is not enough to keep the article. Punctured Bicycle 14:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - strongly notable in context, and a well known, significant and notable context. Georgewilliamherbert 00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Jeffrey O. Gustafson and article's FA status. As Stan Lee says, "'Nuff Said". MikeWazowski 03:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment regarding per Jeffrey O. Gustafson votes. Jeffrey's argument was "Spoo is a significant part of the Babylon 5 mythology, and has always played an even more significant role in Babylon 5 fandom." That may be true, but where are the reliable, third-party published sources proving it? The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Punctured Bicycle 03:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count two books mentioned in this very discussion. Neither is by JMS; the one with page numbers a few lines up calls itself "The Definitive Unauthorized Guide" (emphasis mine). Which seems pretty third-party to me. --Masamage ♫ 04:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dining on Babylon 5 is a cookbook published by Warner Brothers, the company that owns Babylon 5. It is possible that The Babylon File has information about spoo, but it is unclear whether it would help establish notability, since the article currently doesn't cite it and its contents are unknown. An "in joke" does not sound very promising and this single reference would hardly represent significant coverage. Punctured Bicycle 04:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, Dining on Babylon 5 was not published by Warner Bros., but by Boxtree Ltd., which is part of the McGraw-Hill publishing group - which I was able to find out with only a minute of Google searching. Why not check your facts when trying to puncture anyone else's arguments counter to yours, and try to work to make the article better, as I have done? Thank you! MikeWazowski 15:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's an officially licensed product with Straczynski's creative input published on behalf of Warner Bros.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Why is it that other AFDs don't get this kind of a turnout? I think we should make participation in maintenance discussions a compulsory activity, a condition for an editor's ability to create and edit articles. The embetterment that would ensue would be well worth such a price of admission. Not to mention weeding out the undesirables. --Agamemnon2 08:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer Precisely because people don't want to see full detailed articles go down the drain. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Very famous concept in a very famous series. Well-written and extensive article. The article was even featured! Wikipedia certainly needs spooooo. JIP | Talk 12:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article: I was looking for hours to find exactly this article... as unbelievable as it might be. I entered a strat-game based on babylon 5 and the name of one of the 16 players: SPOOmun Complat. Looking for some background info... and here I've found it. Now I realize that the wiki is a superb place to find info about all the alternative worlds and that's fine. Spoo wouldn't make it into the Britannica but that's why I prefer wikipedia (nobody around to say what's worth mentioning and what not). And who is seriously considering deleting an article that is correct, made with much work and love and now dozens of people are busy discussing it... wiki running out of space? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.207.43 (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 84.190.207.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep I believe this is the first time that I've ever seen a featured article nominated for deletion. A-fucking-mazing. As the principle editor/author of FICT said, quit using FICT wrongly already. Kyaa the Catlord 01:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Language man... Spawn Man 03:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cited WP:FICT almost word for word and I never eliminated the possibility of reducing the full article to a concise, sourced section within a broader article. Punctured Bicycle 13:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I cannot believe how complete and accurate this article is. I was a GEI (Grid Epsilon Irregular), a member of the GEnie network's Babylon 5 group from the '90s, and I saw these posts by JMS with my own eyes. Spoo is an important part of Babylon 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrath (talk • contribs) 08:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't believe this was even nominated. I'm eating spoo right now because it is so darned notable. Yummy. (sakes alive, this is a FEATURED article-- have some respect for the consensus process, please). OfficeGirl 05:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Longstanding policies and guidelines represent consensus better than personal opinions like "I'm eating spoo right now because it is so darned notable. Yummy." I've grounded this nomination in two core policies, WP:V—as reflected in WP:NOTE and WP:FICT—and WP:NOR. Consensus is based on a system of good reasons, yet the people voting keep are not engaging my points and are giving unbacked opinions:
  • 'The nominator has bad intentions' — Incorrect, assuming bad faith, and not a good reason for keeping an article on Wikipedia.
  • 'The article is featured' — Notability is not currently part of the FA criteria, so this is irrelevant.
  • 'Important part of Babylon 5', 'There is real-world notability' — Wikipedia does not care about what is important or notable; we care about what can be documented to be important or notable through reliable, third party sources. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
  • 'There is substantial out-of-universe info in the article' False. There is little, and what is there is trivial and was derived from original research. The article makes incredibly feeble attempts to establish out-of-universe importance, e.g. "The question of what spoo is made it into the major Babylon 5 FAQ."
  • 'WP:FICT is being applied incorrectly' False. I never eliminated the possibility of reducing the full article to a concise, sourced section within a broader article. Merge is an option for any AFD debate. Punctured Bicycle 09:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have certainly got enough sources for this subject for an article - maybe it shouldn't be featured, but it's certainly not AfD fodder. Seems like a WP:POINT nomination, almost.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove, no independent reliable sources, non-notable subject that happened to get far along in the process (not the first time that a non-notable article advances well into the Wiki hierarachy, see Good article, NPA personality theory at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony M. Benis). The argument that it passed FAC and FAR aren't relevant to notability; FAC and FAR are no more or less infalliable than the rest of Wiki, and the recent FAR defaulted to no consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—AfD shouldn't be used to stimulate discussion about merging. AfDs are for deletion—the last resort—not open discussion about editorial desicions. Discuss merges on the talkpage BEFORE AfD. Consider transwiki. If neither option is possible or logical, then AfD. WT:FICT is being slammed with comments because these people are applying WP:FICT incorrectly. I made the wording clear in WP:FICT, and if people choose to ignore it, then shame on them. — Deckiller 20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't own the interpretation on WP:FICT, and you obviously have not made the wording clear. I don't see any difference between discussing a merge in an AFD debate and on the article's talk page, other than 1. the latter will not stick 2. the latter will have inadequate exposure to the community. You seem to forget that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Punctured Bicycle 02:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • He doesn't WP:OWN it, but you claiming that sentences mean something different than what the guy who wrote them says they mean is rather absurd. --tjstrf talk 02:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually claimed "You don't own the interpretation on WP:FICT." (And "own" does not mean WP:OWN.) Punctured Bicycle 03:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you're claiming Deckiller doesn't know what he meant when he said something? --tjstrf talk 03:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. I'm claiming that guidelines are open to interpretation. I'm claiming that even if we follow Deckiller's strict interpretation and I indeed made a minor procedural error, that does not invalidate the nomination, as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I will add that WP:FICT is not my only point, and this nomination could have been done easily without it. Why people keep obsessing over WP:FICT, while ignoring WP:NOTE and WP:NOR, is beyond me. Punctured Bicycle 04:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Punctured Bicycle, what Deckiller is saying is that you are ignoring the intent of the guideline and therefore applying it incorrectly. It is clear that the guideline as written does a terrible job of communicating its intent, which is one of the reasons why there is so much on-going debate on the new version of the guideline, so perhaps it is understandable you are misinterpreting it. But the intent of the guideline is to encourage streamlining of articles on fictional topics and serve as a guideline to be applied with "common sense" not an iron-clad rule to be blindly swung about like a sledgehammer. Deletion is supposed to be a last resort. Fairsing 00:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't say it does a terrible job in communicating its intent, as most scenarios have been extremely accurate. The wording is as clear as it can get, and the only thing I've seen being implemented incorrectly is the idea that deletion is a last resort (a statement clearly mentioned in the "nutshell" part, ironically). The thing is that people are only drawing from select aspects of the guideline, just like many guidelines out there; there are so many opinions involved WRT fiction, so any version of the guideline will be controversial to many. People only read or interpret what they want to interpret, and while adding less authoritative wording may be recommended, it will actually lead to additional interpretations. — Deckiller 02:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The in-universe sections of WP:FICT, which this article does indeed stretch, do not justify deletion; they may warrant rewriting, although a significant part of this article is from an out-of-universe perspective. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real-world etymology of the word is mostly padding and original research, listing similar sounding words in a manner which is prohibited by WP:NEO.--Nydas^(Talk) 05:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per His Space - also it is a featured article.--JForget 23:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am not an author of this article. Spoo is very notable in the B5 universe and the article is too large to merge. Pocopocopocopoco 01:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. When one Wikipedia process determines that this article "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work" and another process might be deciding that this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all, the idea that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy becomes quite laughable. DHowell 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Supported by reliable sources from the creators, meets the Featured Article criteria so it sure as hell meets criteria to have its own article! Judgesurreal777 20:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First, it's a featured article and there isn't enough presented to justify deleting one. Second, Babylon 5 is notable, and the subject is a significant part of it's ongoing narrative. That is the standard for notability of fictional things right? Horrorshowj 15:00, 12 September 2007 (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.