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. Some sources have been found, and while they haven't satisfied everybody, there does not appear to be a consensus to delete, and a number of editors have expressed that this element in Half-Life is too important to remove. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mesa Research Facility[edit]

Black Mesa Research Facility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails the notability requirements for fiction, dealing entirely with the subject from an in universe perspective with no secondary sources which prove notability. I would say merge, except all the good info has been summarized within the games. - Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per the well-detailed nom. Fancruft.--WaltCip (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Half-Life (series). I would say merge, but the good, relevant information is already in the appropriate articles. On its own, the subject simply isn't notable. This could only ever be written in an in-universe style. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge trimmed content to Half-Life (series) (also would include Black Mesa East and City 17 at the same time though they are not part of this AFD). A "setting" section in a article about a video game series would be completely appropriate. --MASEM 23:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Especially since they don't come much more iconic than Black Mesa. Maybe Azeroth amd Level 1-1. --Kizor

• • Keep per references found since. However, article needs major cleanup - we do not need a complete rundown of the facilities that are in the site that are mostly sourced from primary, just a general overview. --MASEM 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - And merge anything useful beforehand to the series article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as notable element of notable game that is well presented with references that are consistent per First pillar with a specialized enyclopedia. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a good reason for deletion, nor is WP:PERNOM. Also, we cannot merge and delete per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete and merge some kind of summarized overview to a Half-life article, as something that is not notable outside of the context of that main Half-life article. Randomran (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Simply a plot "summary" plus detailed physical description of various levels of Half-Life. Nifboy (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such doesn't need this level of detail per WP:NOT#INFO. Una Laguna^Talk 06:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Phlegm Rooster's findings below assert notability and are plentiful enough to justify the subject matter an article to itself, even if the current article needs a cleanup. Una Laguna^Talk 19:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I was notified of the AfD of this article as its original creator. It has grown into a very detailed work translated into over a dozen languages since I last worked on it four years ago. If it were to be merged as some have suggested the detailed information contained in it would be lost in a more general article. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and I see no reason why there can't be articles about seemingly trivial matters in fictional universes as is the case here if there are users willing to maintain the article, as is obviously the case given its current state. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree that this isn't any more fit for deletion than any of the other articles on fictional locations (see Azeroth in the World of Warcraft universe as an example. At worst merge into Half-Life 2 and keep the bulk of the text, because it's such a central element to the game--Camokub (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Azeroth is a disambiguation pointing to Warcraft (series), its article having been redirected. Nifboy (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: Being the fictional location of one of the most popular games in the world is not trivial. Wikipedia is one of the best sources on the internet for HL-related stuff, and it would be a shame to see it all deleted due to some nonsence about "notability". --The monkeyhate (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I figured that an extremely significant and well-known element of game design would raise professional interest. A cursory search found things like Narrative in Computer Games and Story: Writing Skills for Game Developers from the Game Developers' Conference. I'm going to go with keep here, those who have experience in editing Half-Life - related things or finding references for video game coverage should look deeper into this. --Kizor 14:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While both can be considered secondary sources, the references above do not talk about Black Mesa, only giving the nod that Half Life takes place within it. Any sources for notability need to be more than just mentions of the location and should be more about any critical reception or commentary on it, or even developer information (I've done a google news search with no luck along these lines). --MASEM 15:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, true enough on the sourcing requirements, but I figured - and figure - that these two do describe Black Mesa beyond just mentioning it as the place where Half-Life happens. There's a fair few things to be said about the way the location is designed to conduct narrative indirectly without taking control away from the player, and the sense of ordinary life gone wrong that the first game's peaceful opening underlines. You'll be happy to note that the former file does have developer information about the narrative and the inspiration of Stephen King's The Mist. --Kizor 16:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if one could read those as sufficient analysis for secondary sources, if those are the only two we have (I'm not saying there may not be more), the amount of other content in the article relative to this is out of balance. The influence of "The mist" can still be mentioned if merged to another article. --MASEM 18:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete. I wonder if we're perhaps getting sidetracked here? There is no argument that Half Life is a very popular game and that this is a very nice, extensive article about one of HL's locations. Nobody wants to vaporize the article into nonexistence. The question is simply whether it belongs here in WP. As an encyclopedia article, it has many problems that have been pointed out and that haven't been fixed: the material is told from an in-universe perspective which is not appropriate for WP, there is a distinct lack of 3rd-party citations, and there is at least a serious question of notability as this article rests solely on the notability of HL, not its own. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As already indicated above, per the GFDL, we cannot legally "merge and delete". Please see Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. So, since the good information all appears elsewhere, as already indicated above, there is no need for such a flawed article. --AnnaFrance (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As has been indicated throughout this discussion there are far more reasons to keep this article than to delete it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's no reason not to keep the article. Unless, of course, someone feels like he has the authority to decide what fits in and what doesn't. Soviet censors did the same thing. Mikael GRizzly (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What --Kizor 16:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki Why not transwiki to Half life wikia?. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it was easy to find that this particular fictional location is very notable. It has 7 Google books hits, 11 Google scholar hits, and 53 Google news hits. Some of these sources do more than mention the location; they claim that it was ground-breaking, responsible for the success of the game, and well-realized, among other things. They discuss, in detail, what the visual and temporal design of the location means to the player as the game is played. We could ask no more of the sources than this, the very definition of notability. I loaded up the article's lead with some of the book references just now, please take a look. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the google books, at least from the previews shown, merit significant coverage; they are merely mentions. Same thing for the scholar mentions; they are mentioning the setting of Half-Life, but unless they are providing critical commentary exclusively about the location, it doesn't meet notability requirements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article already exists in transwikied form here. If the article is kept then it needs to be entirely ripped up and started again from an encyclopedic viewpoint as its current form is unacceptable. There's no disputing (although someone inevitably will) that the article is an utter mess of in-universe information and original research. If deleted, redirect to Half-Life (series) afterwards to preserve the search term. In any case, most of the relevant articles contain much of the necessary information already in the "setting" sections. -- Sabre (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Google News results linked by Phlegm Rooster. These clearly demonstrate notability. Oren0 (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they don't. See above comments, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and WP:N. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of interpretation (or spin), but I have tried to distinguish between mere mentions and reviews/analysis. I think the sources rise to the occasion in this rare case. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability (fiction) is a proposed policy. The policy for notability in general requires non-trivial mention in third-party reliable sources, which this article meets. Though I would support Merging to Locations in the Half-Life series as proposed directly below. Oren0 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion This might be a reasonable case to merge Black Mesa Research Facility, City 17, Black Mesa East, Xen, Nova Prospeck, Ravenholm, The Coast, White Forest Rocket Facility, and possibly the section on Aperture Science from Portal (video game) to a single article Locations in the Half-Life series. This is tied with the references mentioned above in that though explicit for Half-Life, I would not be surprised to find similar comments for the Half-Life 2 locations (I can find at least one on Ravenhelm) - in other words, there does appear to be sufficient sources to state that the "locations" of Half-Life games are notable. Merging them (with redirects, so as not to merge and delete, and transwiking existing pages) with the correct amount of trimming, may be helpful to link these aspects all in to avoid the excess text that might be there presently, yet present all these locations in an encyclopedic manner. --MASEM 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be an ideal solution. While individual locations may not be notable, establishing notability for the concept of locations in HL should work - its what we do for a lot of character articles after all. That gets my support. -- Sabre 21:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This article seems to perfectly satisfy verifability and other requirements, and I believe it should stay.Paulalex19 (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly does not "perfectly satisfy verifability" - it barely references anything. Practically all of the article is original research, based on what the original writer deduced from the games. -- Sabre (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable location in highly notable series. Size suggests merging may be unwieldy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the problem is the size of this article. It is not necessary to cover all the known portions of the facility, but instead to give a general overview of what the non-gamer should be aware exists within the facility as to understand why it is being called notable per the sources above (this puts undue weight on the in-universe aspects and not on it's reception). Most of this can be cut down to 2-4 paragraphs to keep the critical information, and thus making merging with other locations reasonable. Right now, as it stands, it is too much in-universe in tone, and reads like a promotional brochure for employment at Black Mesa. "Come work for us! Just ignore all the headcrabs..." Cutting down to key salient points (it is huge with its own internal underground tram system, there are numerous people employed there, and the research that goes on is this list) you still get the flavor of what BM is to be to those that have not played the game. --MASEM 13:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • agree.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and edit very sharply. Its notable enough in the fiction for an article, but as is frequently the case, not all of it is important except to the fans. But some of it relevant to any understanding of the general topic. ,DGG (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It has still not been demonstrated that Black Mesa is independently notable; in all sources brought to the discussion thus far it is always discussed in the context of the Half-Life games. Notability is not inherited, and lots of games have their settings named in reviews, etc. but that doesn't make those settings notable. If the fictional locales of a game series is worth preserving outside the game articles, it should be done so via Masem's suggestion above. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of sub and spinout articles, notability is inherited. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A spinout article needs to be clearly marked as such, per the suggestion I referred to earlier in merging it to "Locations in Half-Life" or any similarly titled article ("Setting of Half-Life"). A title that implies that the subject is independently notable ("Black Mesa Research Facility") is a no-go. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Either trim to one or two sourced paragraphs and merge to Locations in the Half-Life series per Masem or delete. The possible sources identified by Phlegm Rooster fall slightly short of establishing notability for the subject, in my opinion, but together with sources for other locations there may be enough for a combined article. Jakew (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Casliber. Clearly notable feature of an even more clearly notable game series. Is the Enterprise from Star Trek not notable? Of course it is. Xihr (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Enterprise can establish its notability through third party sources. While the Enterprise article may not be a shining example of a properly done fictional article, you can at least see some of those sources mirrored in the article. Black Mesa does not apppear to have those sources (or certainly enough to justify why the article shouldn't be merged into a more concise locations of half-life article), and so does not meet independent notability. -- Sabre (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You do not appear to be disputing my point, which is that the subject is clearly notable, it just fails to assert its own notability. That's an argument to improve the article, not delete it. The notability of the subject is not in dispute here. Xihr (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there are no "notability requirements for ficton." If you want secondary sources, start looking through these 92 sources[1][2][3]. AFD is for articles you think should be deleted, not merged. This article is an acceptable spinout of the Half-Life (video game)#Setting section. And David Fuchs continued crusade to delete all things related to Half-Life makes it appear like he has an axe to grind. --Pixelface (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing is exempt from our notability process. That's why WP:FICT exists. If there weren't any notability requirements, the page wouldn't be there. I went through the links for the Half-Life reviews, and the only mention to Black Mesa is as the setting, not anything useful for developing an article from a real-world perspective. If there's no notability, it should not have a spin-out article full of original research, and its information should be limited to the setting part of Half-Life or as part of a collective article on Half-Life locations. It needs sources that do what is outlined here. -- Sabre (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I am only concerned that the keywords 'Black Mesa' eventually reach here, as this was the only definition I wanted to see. Eddietoran (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I'm a little unclear on what you mean here. You want to keep the article because its on a disambiguation page? -- Sabre (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As Masem has suggested, I'm working on a merged version for all the locations in my sandbox (while this article may potentially be able to portray notability, most of the others cannot). Don't expect it to be in a decent state for a while though, it probably won't be ready until after this AfD is finished. -- Sabre (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2008 (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.