Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Song of Ice and Fire Universe


 * 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 of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A Song of Ice and Fire Universe
The reason this article should be deleted has nothing to do with this being an article about fiction and has nothing to do with notability. It is composed almost entirely of original research by a single indivdual who has, as stated in the talk page, decided to take references to various things and events in the universe of the series and provide them with his own scientific explanations that are found nowhere in the books, the authors words elsewhere, or any published material. One user proposed that the article be merged, but as virutally every word is original research, that is not a feasible approach. It should be deleted. Indrian 08:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It appears that this is an analysis of a legitimate work, A Song of Ice and Fire. However, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. -- Nsevs •  Talk  08:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nsevs -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 09:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I only started to work on the topic two hours ago and you are already considering in for deleteion? I'm going to write a serious article here and will appreciate if you give me a day or two to complete it. I promise not to make any unchecked claims (the ones present in first revision are only juicy place fillers). I think every GRRM fan will benefit from such an article. Oakad
 * Keep working on it, then. AfD takes five days minimum. If you can bring it up to snuff in the meantime the article will be saved. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Westeros. The title itself (A Song of Ice and Fire Universe) would be a useful and linkable redirect to Westeros anyway. Arbor 10:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per no original research. Non-notable. Message to creator, you may like to create a userpage for yourself and create a sandbox for future references. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 10:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I finished the rewrite. The article is fully supported by the facts (from the only authoritative source). I invite everybody to comment on a new version. (Vote Stricken because double vote by page's author.Arbor 12:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
 * Delete. In its current form it is original research. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * phwoar. Delete, WP:NOR. RasputinAXP  talk contribs 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete "can be inferred"; "suggests that" and the like are the marks of original research. This is an interesting essay, but wikipedia is not the place for it. The author should publish it on a proper fan or SF comentary site. If it gets notice and comment, it might even be appropriate to mention it or link to it from Westeros. DES (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge anything of use to Westeros and redirect. Much of this is OR, and as for the rest, we already have a lot of material on ASOIAF. Let's try to keep it under one roof. —rodii 03:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me modify that: merge to A Song of Ice and Fire, which already has a "Plot and setting" section. rodii


 * Merge with Westeros per Arbor. Brendan 04:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, third attempt. And I also want to re-iterate the claim I've made on discussion page: Westeros is a continent on the larger planet in the yet larger fictional universe. This is not true of Middle-Earth, as the only account we have on it is some hobbit's diary and a book of myths published after the creator's death.oakad 07:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And one more. Arda and Middle-Earth are two different articles (not in risk of merging) and quite full of speculations themselves. In fact, at present revision, I don't see any problem with my article (can we have the AfD tag removed?).138.217.34.39 12:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid the AfD tag can't be removed. The AfD process still has to be carried out.  In any case, the article is still full of POV judgments and minor speculations.  I'll see if I can clean it those up (as well as some grammatical problems).  As for Arda and Middle-Earth, if those articles (which cover distinct topics) contain speculation, the solution is to remove it, not use it as precedent to keep other speculation. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with regard to Westeros and Middle-Earth, though. Could you be clearer?  Thanks. Brendan 17:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've finished reworking the article, and given its present state I still think a merge with Westeros is the best option. Brendan 17:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Middle-Earth was used as a model in the early stage of the discussion. It is a long accepted article, and an Arda article is long accepted too (Middle-Earth is a continent in Arda). ASoIaF is however, much better developed world with lot of additional info - it's probably 4 to 6 time bigger than LoTR together with Silmarillion. Westeros itself has enormous amount of historical and political data.


 * I've looked at your edits:
 * You deleted my account on astronomical seasons - GRRM explicitly clarified that planet has both astronomical years and climatic seasons (multi-year spanning).
 * You removed references to his past works - I think its important to leave them (given the habit of GRRM to reuse his ideas).
 * What's wrong with valyrian lords? Everybody, from free cities to Lannisport distinguishes Dragonlords and plain valyrian descendants. They are also a specific sub-species of humans, having considerable magical abilities and distinguishing look.
 * Every story insider who ever speaks of Ghis considers it to be older than Valyria. Valyria influence is large in Westeros - through trade, rulers or artifacts. Valyria craft is more advanced than any other we see in the book (these are facts you removed).
 * Info that is not yet in the article. GRRM provided specific references to climate, nature and recent geological past (Dorn was connected to eastern continent by the land bridge, there is no land at the far north, climate data is available for most of the free cities). I need time to merge this in.
 * Future info. FoC has a lot of info that was not available in the first three books. However, the next book is expected to have even more and there is also a chance that GRRM will go on and explain his line of reasoning in writing of the book (like he did with Windhaven). This does not precludes us to cover already available data.


 * Alternatives:
 * Why not merge with Westeros: Westeros is already heading to be a huge article (even without the rest of the world).
 * Why not merge with some book description: its beneficial to have page that describes settings, but has no spoilers.
 * Why not change the title: Precedent: Arda is considered to be both universe (artice uses term "solar system") and planet (long accepted claim on Arda page). Encapsulation: We have (or will have) some info on cosmology, more info on the planet and even more info on couple of specific places. Consider definition 1b of M-W for "universe": "the world of human experience" (in our case - story humans).

oakad 01:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm neutral-to-merge on this (see above)--I think the topic is OK, but the title is terrible, and it should try a little harder to fit with existing ASOIAF material--but I have to say, Oakad, you are getting a little excited here. Most of that stuff above belongs on the talk page. Here we're just talking about whether this encyclopedia should have an article on this subject (and if so, secondary questions like where). But it seems like you really, really want to defend your approach to this material, and given that this is a wiki, that can't be guaranteed. You don't own this article, remember; if someone comes along and edits it—for instance, to take out the original research component, per Wikipedia policy—is that going to be OK? —rodii 01:54, 6 February 2006 (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.