Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorverse concepts and terminology

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 due to WP:NOT and sourcing issues. MBisanz ^talk 05:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Honorverse concepts and terminology

Honorverse concepts and terminology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unreferenced in-universe trivia and plot summary. No indication these ideas -- individually or as a whole -- are notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:PLOT, WP:IINFO and WP:DICT. --EEMIV (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• strong keep These are the core of understanding the Honorverse.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 09:19, April 12, 2009

  For such a broad series covering 11 books + spin-offs, surely there is a third-party source you can add to the article substantiating this claim? The article itself seems not to think these topics "are the core"; the lead identifies them only as "various concepts," with no indication of inclusion/exclusion criteria. --EEMIV (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep this page seems to be an example of a failed comprimise offered by moderate inclusionists, and ignored by hard core deletionists: that characters and episode lists are acceptable, but individual articles are not. The Laundry list of acronyms/Alphabet soup above ignores the unwritten exception that fictional characters and episodes have to the draconian notability guidelines since this edit war began in 2004. Ikip (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

  Your "unwritten exception" is pure fiction. Jack Merridew 05:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Per Debresser and Ikip. PS. I think this and similar pages should have brief summaries, and then link to existing articles on honorverse wiki. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note, this debate has been included on Talk:Honorverse Ikip (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete entirely unsourced list of trivia written in essay fashion that is completely original research. Wikipedia is not a fan-site or a directory, and as it stands this article violates OR, SYNTH, N, V and probably a few others.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial listcruft/clutter at best. Move to a fan Wiki if there is one. Wikipedia isn't a place for every plot detail. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

  Not for every plot detail, but yes for the constitutional elements of a series of 11 novels, and 2 spun-off series, and a real-world game Saganami Island Tactical Simulator. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. "Stuff in fictional series." These can be explained when they need to be explained, and not explained at all when they don't. Arranging trivial fragments of fiction into ever-more-complex mosiacs of lists and histories and such is not good encyclopedia writing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Explaining concepts that add to the understanding of a popular series, is always a good reason to have an article. If the information wouldn't fit on the main page, then you create a side article for it. Dream Focus 00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep glossaries are accepted on Wikipedia (WP:GLOSSARIES) 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  "The following is a working draft of a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process." One of the reasons it hasn't gone much further is debate on how to exclude "lists of random stuff in fictional universe". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This is a notable series (multiple bestsellers, active forum discussion group at the publisher's site, large audience of readers, participation in the series by several writers, ...) that this is not an nonnotable topic suited to some WP articles. But, as it's fiction, there is little possibility of sourcing much of the subject matter of the books. Since glossaries and list are permitted for other sorts of fiction (and author corpus) this series should be no exception. As for the struggle between the inclusionists and exclusionists, this has -- on both sides -- considerable potential of a war little enders and big enders. Dean Swift was right ot mock such contests between the overly committed, and were he available I expect he would see yet another example here. The struggle is unworthy of WP, in nearly all respects. unworthy of WP.
  The only rational argument I can see is parsimony for the storage needed by marginal or less respected articles, particulalry by those of an exclusionary bent. T\Given the areal advances in disk storage, this is an argument which has been overtaken by events. ww (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  So you're saying that because other stuff exists (and because of some philosophical rambling about the nature of this project), this should be allowed to exist. That doesn't address the fact that this is a random potpourri of vaguely-related topics, with all of the commentary being personal evaluation of works of fiction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  No personal evanluations here, just collected information. Stick to the facts, please. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  Oh? Did an authority other than a Wikipedia editor comment on any of this, or was it Wikipedia editors examining a cat and writing cat? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  One can use primary sources without engaging in WP:OR. That's why we can use primary sources. And yes, calling a cat a cat is a something we trust editors to do. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point? Hobit (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  One cannot use primary sources in a way that does not reflect their content without writing an original synthesis of those sources. The various fictional plots have been cut from sheets into many tiny tiles, and arranged here into an original mosiac. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  I think you're wrong here, but maybe I'm still misunderstanding. Are you arguing that one can't use primary sources, organizing information in a novel way is OR, or something else? I certainly disagree in a strong sense with the first two, but I'm not sure how else to read what you wrote. Hobit (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  If i can answer for Mr. Cash... It's not original research to summarize a work of fiction (done all the time -- multiply so in articles about these works already) but to pick and chose from a work of fiction and make editorial decisions about the important "concepts" in it is original research. That's how i see it at any rate.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  What Bali said. (And lol Mr. Cash :D) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  By summarizing a work of fiction the author makes editorial decisions about what plot points are important. Why is identifying "important" objects or concepts original research but identifying "important" plot points or characters isn't? Hobit (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  It's the same distinction made in WP:N. Subtopics dealt with in an article don't need to be individually notable, but topics given their own article do. This article doesn't have any notable topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure that was a non-sequitur. I understand the sourcing issues with WP:N, but you and UB seemed to be arguing on the basis of OR. Could you clarify why you feel why selecting "important" plot points and character lists isn't OR but selecting important "concepts" is? I think that's what you and UB just concluded and I'm not seeing it. Hobit (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  There's no topic here. No notable topic has been suggested, and "pile of stuff" is not a notable topic. If you make up a new non-notable abstract topic, that is OR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. A list of fictional elements that aren't individually notable enough for articles, but I see no issue with having them in this form. At some point, some of them may be merged to a more traditionally-structured Politics of Honorverse article, which would include discussion of many of these items. Such an article would be clearly-encyclopedic, and would take content from the sections of this article labelled 'Final Wars', 'Deneb Accords', 'Eridani Edict', and 'Operation Thunderbolt', and would also probably merge in some of the content of other Honorverse-related articles. JulesH (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete — As nominator says, this is a list of non-notable trivia. I especially note AMIB's comment. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No notability asserted, completely fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Simply because stuff is "important" doesn't mean that we have an article on it. What is "important" as far as we're concerned is stuff that is covered by reliable, independent sources. This isn't. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. This kind of junk is why we need to get WP:FICT back from the grasp of a few fanatics so we have a clear guideline as to what does and does not belong here. Eusebeus (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  Agreed, but I'd not call the delentionists "fanatics" merely people with slightly wrong-headed opinions. In all seriousness a clear guideline is exactly what is needed. I'm starting to think we should just anoint a committee of reasonable folks from both sides and all agree to stick with whatever they come up with. The two extremes are just too far apart. Hobit (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  You're wrong-headed!

  I mean. WP:FICT has had some good compromise proposals from good-natured people, but it isn't fanaticism so the fact that it gradually changes into a written-by-committee mess with no clear goal or agenda or consequences. It attempts to straddle two proposals: "This is what fiction should look like" and "This is how we get our piecemeal, disorganized, incomplete, vastly excessive fiction articles there." No WP:FICT proposal is going to get off the ground without clearly addressing both of those. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  Agreed on the goal. Just don't see a way forward. Which sucks. I'd much rather get an agreement on what we should have than fight article by article. Hobit (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  Even if we get a Unified Theory of Fiction Organization, it's going to be an article-by-article fight to bring the articles we have in line. This, I think, is part of the opposition to any new proposal; the status quo is just easier. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hey look, all the regulars are here This is looking a lot like a place the inclusionists and deletionists are coming in mass (myself included). I think a broader discussion needs be had on stuff like this rather than just noming things (a proposed merge target from a previous AfD is what I assume started this). But for the record: Keep. A) this is exactly the right way to handle large numbers of things from a fictional universe. B) the sum total of this has plenty of RSes: the reviews each cover one aspect or another to some extent. C) The main article has lots of information and per WP:WAF a spinout article is reasonable here. Hobit (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  I think these noms have mostly been targeting the low-hanging fruit. There's a significant Honorverse walled garden on WP, and the worst articles of it are here at AFD. There are plenty of bad-but-improvable ones that didn't (and shouldn't) end up on AFD.

  Now, what's the topic here? "List of Honorverse stubs we couldn't find another home for" is not a good article topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  We have list of characters and the like all over wikipedia. Do you feel those are specific enough for a good article topic? Any suggestions about how to better organize this material if it is kept? Hobit (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  There are very few stories for which characterization is not a topic. The implicit topic of nearly every list of characters is "characterization of [work]". Lists of stuff don't have such a natural topic.

  My suggestion on organizing this material is not feeling the need to document the in-universe aspects in such explicit detail and handling them in context with a degree of detail appropriate to explaining the plot. We don't need a random page saying that the Beowulf Code is the Hippocratic Oath with various modifications to serve the plot, when we can just say that whenever we need to mention the Beowulf Code. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  And if someone comes here wanting to know what the Beowulf Code is, haven't we just done them a disservice? Hobit (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  Redirects. The search function. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  And they get it in pieces (in the places it shows up when needed) rather than in one place. Hobit (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  They're going to have to put the pieces together themselves, sadly, instead of us fusing the pieces together into an original whole. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Those above me have covered everything relevant - plot summary, trivia, non-notable, etc. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 06:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• A simple argument for keep is the number of merges proposed into this article (three). So it is needed. Debresser (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

  No, it isn't. The argument to a delete is that it's a pile of random stuff, without a guiding topic. Adding more stuff to the pile doesn't help that or change that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

  It's not "random stuff": it's concepts and terms explained, and therefore vital for an understanding of the Honorverse and the Honorverse articles on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

  According to whom is it vital? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. When did "The Free Encyclopedia" become "Jimbo's big bag of Trivia" (Apologies to Mr.Brandt)? Just because something doesn't fit in an article does not mean it should be put in it's own. Unreferenced (and unreferencable), non-notable list. yandman 12:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Of course it's referenceable. It will be trivial to reference this to primary sources and a handful of secondary sources (reviews and the like). Hobit (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note that the author of the series has published a universe encyclopedia that explains all these concepts in some depth. All of this can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, although those sources are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability. JulesH (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as having no real-world notability. If there is an appropriate external wiki to which this could be transferred, I would be hapy to assist. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as it has no real-world notability. After a week at AfD and numerous voices shouting to keep this article, there has yet to be one reliable source added. This article is still a collection of in-universe fancruft, without any reliable sources that assert notability in the real world, as required by WP:WAF. No amount of "cleaning up" can magically create notability if none exists to begin with. ThemFromSpace 04:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

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.