Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Mysteries (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus‎. Strongly divided after two relists. I will note that the lack of consensus around notability should not prevent other issues in the article from being addressed, including the overuse of external links mentioned in the nomination. RL0919 (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Mysteries

AfDs for this article:

[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'm rather surprised that this survived the earlier deletion discussion, which seems very shallow. Most of those calling for keeping it cited only the sheer number of sources all piled up in one place, with apparently nobody, including the nominator, actually looking at them. Well, I've looked at them all, or at least those that are still online, and they are all nearly exactly the same: some fan horror fan website or podcast writes like two paragraphs saying "these are kind of cool" and then reproduces several of the illustrations (although those have mostly been taken down now as well). I didn't find a single one that a person could honestly characterize as significant coverage from a reliable source.

The use of external links is also problematic, we don't usually include 140 external links in the body of an article, or any at all, actually. It would be more effort than this article is worth to even correct this problem as this appears to have been a flash-in-the-pan fad that the artist did to raise money for some other project, from what I can glean from the extremely scant actual coverage that goes beyond "hey look at this." Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Comics and animation. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree that it can be characterized as a "flash-in-the-pan fad" when it's been going on for 10 years continues to get coverage since the last time a source was added to the article, 1, 2, 3. What can be considered "in depth" is highly debatable, personally I would say that what is here gets the subject over GNG. And "article is bad/weird/unusual" is not a valid reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying What can be considered "in depth" is highly debatable is easy enough, but I don't think you can actually show that any of this coverage has any depth at all, and also none of it is what would be considered a reliable source, which you haven't addressed with your reply. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are considered reliable by the horror project as far as I know.★Trekker (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing whatever specialized sourcing guideline you are referring to. "I think a WikiProject agrees with me" is not a valid argument as that is obviously not how we determine what is a reliable source. Geek Tyrant, for example, does not look at all like proffessional journalism. Neither does The Retroist, which spilled all of 131 words on the subject, hardly in-depth coverage. Paste (magazine) seems an ok source, but they wrote only five sentences, that again, boiled down to "hey look at this guys Tumblr" and nothing else. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am satisfied with the existing coverage. The page might do with some cleanup, true. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly confused how you could look at literally any of the sources and feel that they present the subject in any depth. There's nothing beyond "hey look at this" which is why the article is just the same. There's a good number of sources, but if you can't point to at least a few that have some depth then how can you be satisfied with it? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have already stated that 3 times or maybe more and Trekker has already kindly replied. Check the definition of significant on Wikipedia, if you wish. Various sources are independent and reliable and address the productions directly; the coverage can be considered significant either individually, or collectively, if your concern is the number of words or sentences of each of the sources. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the definition of significant on Wikipedia, if you wish. Yeah, I'm aware of it, the sentence you quote actually says "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" (emphasis added). This is my entire point, there is no detailed analysis in any of the sources. A whole bunch of brief mentions that say nothing of substance doesn't meet the bar. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never doubted you knew it. But that's what Trekker already told you, the threshold between in-depth and not in-depth can appear debatable. The dichotomy detail/vs/trivial mention, on the other hand, less so. And various sources are clearly not passing mentions but address the topic directly, yes. You might, personally, wish there were more details or might not like what the source says, or what you see, or the way the article says things, or maybe you find it of little interest, etc., but some sources can reasonably be called detailed and can definitely not be called trivial coverage. I don't like it either, at all, if you want to know the truth, but, from my understanding of the guideline, it may be considered notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
some sources can reasonably be called detailed and can definitely not be called trivial coverage. Again, easy to say without actually pointing out which ones you are talking about. Without actually saying which ones, you aren't actually making a point. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The first source is "Geek Tyrant" which does not seem like the most reliable of sources and is only five sentences, so not significant coverage. The second source is similarly "ComingSoon.net" which is only four sentences long. The third source is "ComingSoon.net" again, this time with five sentences. I don't see the significant coverage in reliable sources here that would suggest this might meet WP:GNG. I'd consider an article on the artist rather than this one of their art projects, but this seems far from WP:ARTIST standards like "significant new concept, theory, or technique," "substantial part of a significant exhibition," or "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Elspea756 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not replying on the significant/not significant issue, but I would not be opposed to redirecting it to Travis Falligant (see https://nerdist.com/article/scooby-doo-horror-icons-art-michael-myers-jason-voorhees-freddy-krueger/ https://in.ign.com/scooby-doo/62024/news/artist-imagines-scooby-doo-meeting-freddy-jason-and-more (both about the Scooby-Doo work and not quoted in the article, if I am not mistaken) https://bloody-disgusting.com/images/3605367/artist-travis-falligants-adorable-horror-babies-ready-animated-series/ https://www.altpress.com/an_artist_transformed_disney_princesses_into_popular_horror_movie_character/ that could help establish his new concept is the cute x horror crossover) but in the meantime, this is perhaps his best known and (I think) most extensive work and we can't redirect it to a non-existing page. Again, if other users think renaming and reshaping the page is better, I am not opposed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked these suggested sources, and am regretting that I spent any time doing so. I am switching my previous comment to "strong delete," as I am further convinced this is nowhere near WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Elspea756 (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what is puzzling to me as well. The last AFD ended in a keep result because there was no actual discussion of the quality of the sources. That's fair, when nominating something for deletion the quality of the sources is almost always a key element and the onus is on the nominator to make that point.

Unlike the previous nominator, I did take the time to look at them, and there's nothing there beyond "look at this" which obviously does not constitute significant coverage, whether the sources are reliable or not.

The suggested new sources are just more of the same. Fan sites need to keep grinding out content to attract readers, and that is all that this coverage is, a couple sentences, then a bunch of examples of the works. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nerdist is not a fan site, IGN is not a fan site, Altpress is not a fan site, Bloody Disgusting is not a fan site. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is very frustrating, as the keep comments say they see depth in the coverage, yet have not actually said, at all, which of the many sources contains any depth. I took the time to actually look at the sources and I didn't see it. I've cited examples of how shalow the coverage is. They are saying they see depth of coverage but won't say where they see it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Trekker. Specific genre have their own literature and accepted sources, and its best to realize that there are many things which the major media, for whatever reason, will not cover (tell me about it!). The editors who know the genre consider these as notable artworks of the subject, Scooby Doo, combined with aspects of a recognized storytelling model. Not that it counts here, but since the page gets a respectable 25 or so views a day, in those thousands of views a year some of the incorrect information will have been shook loose by fans of the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2024 (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.