Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxter Building

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. On the face of it, this is a difficult close, since there are twice as many editors wanting to keep the article as delete it. However, deletion policy does not allow for the beliefs of contributors to be weighed, no matter how sincere or passionate they are. In this case, even though the article was flagged for rescue and the deletion discussion lasted longer than seven days, sufficient independent sources were not provided to demonstrate the notability of this building - it is only mentioned in passing, and only primary sources provided information upon which to base description of the building. If independent sources are later found writing about the building rather than about (for example) events that took place in it, I would have no objection to recreation of this article. In the meanwhile, I will be adding a redirect to Fantastic Four since this remains a plausible search term. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter Building

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

Fictional office building which fails WP:N - no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. There's plenty of coverage in fan-type sources and Marvel published material, but that's hardly independent or reliable. There's very little real-world (i.e. not in-universe) coverage which substantiates notability. Claritas § 15:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - highly notable aspect of the comic book franchise for over 40 years, appearing in all aspects of the media from comics, to television, to film. BOZ (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, that's irrelevant, if there's no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Claritas § 12:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Artw found some independent sources, so that requirement should now be satisfied. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undecided as to whether it's significant or whether the sources are reliable. Claritas § 17:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- two single-sentence passing mentions are all that can be found in reliable independent sources. The rest of the sourcing are the comics themselves. Reyk _YO! 07:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. A casual search for refrences finds no lack of them. Artw (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable fictional element central to a major fictional franchise that has spanned multiple decades and media. Plenty of primary sources exist, secondary sources such as this are relatively straightforward to find. Jclemens (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how that's significant coverage. Looking at it, it simply mentions the building several times in a trivial context while explaining plot elements. Claritas § 12:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The building is a major landmark in the Marvel universe. It isn't just the home of the Fantastic Four, but is used as a meeting place for heroes, aliens, hidden races, and whatnot all the time. Many major battles have taken place there. Many notable comic book events. If you click the Google news link, you'll find it appearing many times. Sort through by adding in the name "Fantastic Four" OR "Marvel", etc. I find one result [1] saying "while also exploring classic Marvel landmarks such as the Daily Bugle, Baxter Building and Stark Tower." Its one of the classic Marvel landmarks. Another news source found calls it that also. [2] says "we didn't spot the landmark Baxter Building, but we wouldn't be surprised if that's in there, too". Dream Focus 16:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mentions, not significant coverage. Claritas § 17:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate argument, not substantive response. postdlf (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, here's a substantive response: no-one has ever written a book with a chapter entitled "The Baxter Building" which does not simply provide in-universe coverage. There is no non-trivial out of universe coverage of the Baxter building - i.e. comparable to the cultural coverage received by fictional entities such as Batman or Spiderman. If this debate ends as a keep based on the arguments given, I will take this to deletion review, because it's a clear example so far of local consensus trumping global consensus (in the forms of the policies WP:PLOT and WP:GNG. No-one cares how important it is to fans of the X-men or comic books. We're interested in its suitability as an encyclopaedic topic. Claritas § 20:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Real life buildings don't need entire books written about them. The Baxter building is a major place in many cartoon series, comic books, and video games released over the years, and gets mentioned there, as well as outside of it, in reviews for video games as quoted from and linked to, and also in reviews for comics whenever something major happens there or to the building itself. Threatening to go to deletion review if you don't get your way, is rather lame. If you aren't interested in this sort of article, then you aren't likely to ever find your way here, so why so obsessed with destroying it? Is it simply because you don't like it? WP:Idon'tlikeit Dream Focus 15:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the rest have stated this is a major comic book landmark. A quick google search results in over 720,000 hits, I'd say thats pretty significant.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:GHITS. Claritas § 20:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Redirect or Merge. The independent sources provided for this fictional building are trivial. Even the primary sources treat this topic lightly. Where does Batman hang out? The Bat Cave. Where do the Fantastic Four hang out? Ef if I know. Abductive (reasoning) 10:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You believe the Bat Cave is notable because you've heard of it, but the Baxter Building is not because you haven't heard of it? The Fantastic Four has been around for decades, had movies made about them, several cartoon series, toys, and are a major part of the Marvel Universe. The Baxter Building features prominently in this, it more than just their Bat Cave. Dream Focus 15:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW The Bat Cave article appears to have roughly equivalent sourcing to this one, a little less if anything. Artw (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the guideline WP:BKD states that "it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not", and this fictional building seems to be in violation of that. Claritas § 10:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of independent sourcing to establish notability. Sources proffered so far all appear to be licensed.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to parent article. Doesn't meet WP:NOTE, and is barely notable within the series (whereas the Batcave is a central ___location and element in batman). Lacks any RS establishing notability beyond occasional mentions in comic. 16:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbal (talk • contribs)
Keep - per all the other Keep statements and WP:IAR. This is probably one of the most famous locations in comic book fiction. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore all rules shouldn't be used to get around locally matters of global consensus such as the general notability guideline, just specific deviations from normally acceptable practise. Claritas § 19:02, 27 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.