Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1632 universe background history


 * 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 merge into 1632 series. Daniel Case 03:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

1632 universe background history

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article contains in-depth, essay-like (mainly original research) reflections on 1632 (novel). It's been tagged for cleanup since December 2006, but no one seems to have made serious efforts to salvage it. Although its content could conceivably be merged with that article, most of it is either redundant to content which is already there, or simply unnecessary. Waltontalk 13:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to 1632 (novel) per Notability (fiction) Jeepday (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Trim and merge. Each book in the series does not warrant its own article.  Should be significantly trimmed and main points merged into 1632 series.
 * Merge per jeep.  Buck  ets  ofg  14:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect per above. I'm an enormous fan of the series (and coincidentally, am just about to head out to the bookstore to get the most recent hardcover!) but there's wide scope for trimming.  For one thing, a recap of real world history or bios of historical figures are scarcely necessary, since they already exist in various pertinent articles.  For another, this article is written in a heavily biased style, following the POV of the series.  For a third, especially with the much better written 1632 series article and individual articles on each of the books, this fork is entirely superfluous.    Ravenswing  16:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into 1632 series 132.205.44.5 22:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to all the above, I still think a merge is inappropriate (otherwise I'd have just merged it rather than lifting at AfD). Looking at it, there's simply too much irrelevant or totally in-universe content here to be mergeable. That might be easier to someone more familiar than I am with the series, however, so I'll withdraw the nom if someone does a decent merge and redirect. Waltontalk 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Since the material is interesting and well-written, it is hard to vote for Delete, even though WP:OR raises its ugly head. I hope the other commenters know that AfD closers who see 'Merge' are just going to dump everything into the target article and leave it to the regular editors to sort out.  So anyone who likes this material could begin now to try to integrate it into the target 1632 (novel). EdJohnston 20:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 13:45, 7 July 2007 (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.