Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apocalypse War


 * 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   keep. Procedural close. Evidently this was never listed. No prejudice toward listing these articles individually. Protonk (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Apocalypse War

 * Apocalypse War
 * Atomic Wars
 * Blood War
 * Butlerian Jihad
 * Crown Wars
 * Cylon War
 * Destruction of the Twelve Colonies
 * Fringe War
 * The Great Wars
 * Hispano-Japanese War
 * Sixty Minute War


 * Horus Heresy
 * Idiran-Culture War
 * Intergalactic War (Blake's 7)
 * Pacific War (Harry Turtledove)
 * Radiance War
 * Reckoning of Hell
 * Robotech Wars
 * Yuuzhan Vong invasion
 * Great Jedi Purge
 * Galactic Civil War
 * Second War of the Races


 * Operation British
 * One Year War
 * Neo-Zeon Movements
 * Second Bloody Valentine War
 * Bloody Valentine War
 * Lost Wars
 * War of the Lance
 * Dwarfgate Wars
 * Chaos War
 * Blue Lady's War


 * Shadow War
 * Earth Alliance Civil War
 * Dilgar War
 * World War II in Timeline-191
 * World War I in Timeline-191
 * War of Assassins
 * Vellanti War
 * Utah Troubles (Harry Turtledove)
 * Terran Federation–Bugs conflict
 * Telepath War

This nomination is withdrawn; I will be replacing it asap with individual nominations or grouped nominations as suggested below. Savidan 23:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC) This is a group nomination of the articles listed above because the articles in question pose exactly the same question (namely, they make no claim to out-of-universe notability) and to list them individually would merely waste the time of numerous Wikipedians. These articles are all partial plot summaries of fictional wars written entirely from an in-universe perspective. They have no out-of-universe notability and cite no out-of-universe sources. This clearly violates WP:NOT ("Plot-only description of fictional works") and WP:WAF ("the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources"). For more problems associated with these types of articles see WP:INUNIVERSE. If sources are added to any of the articles to claim that they have out-of-universe notability, I will remove them from this nomination and (if appropriate) nominate them separately. Savidan 20:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For the most part I would agree with you, if I were to go by the proposed wp:fiction. I personally hold opposite points of view on that account. I'd make a possible exeption for Butlerian Jihad and Great Jedi Purge as widely know fictional events. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Widely know[n]" according to whom? I'm sure the fans of each of these fictional works are equally convinced that the one's they are familiar with are "widely known". The guideline is "independent reliable secondary sources". Even if the fictional works in question are widely known, that does not necessarily justify an article for their fictional plot elements in addition to the article about the work itself. Savidan
 * Strong keep WP:NOT is a highly controversial policy. I find it interesting that nominator will renominate the articles regardless if sources are added, in otherwords, it doesnt matter if they have sources or not. Rumpsenate (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, I would only renominate if appropriate. The important point I was making is that I would remove them from this nomination regardless of the quality of the out-of-universe claim to notability. Savidan 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The ones that are not notable should be deleted but I don't have time to research all of these. Mass nominations rarely work out in practice.  The mass nominatons that would make sense never happen. Drawn Some (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Drawn Some. I feel it will be fair to judge these articles seperately then all at once.  Not all have to be seperated.  All of the articles relating to the Timeline-191 series can be judged together.  Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Looking at the listings, it's an interesting patchwork of articles... The nomed articles include:
 * A comics series story line - "Apocalypse War" (Judge Dredd series from 2000 AD)
 * An in-universe plot element/event - Atomic Wars (Judge Dredd series as well)
 * 9 in-universe plot elements/background details for an RPG - Blood War, Crown Wars, Reckoning of Hell, Lost Wars, War of the Lance, Dwarfgate Wars, Chaos War, and Blue Lady's War (Dungeons & Dragons); and Horus Heresy (Warhammer 40,000)
 * 15 in-universe plot elements/background details for a novel or novel series - Butlerian Jihad and War of Assassins (Dune); Fringe War (Ringworld); The Great Wars and Second War of the Races (Shannara); Hispano-Japanese War, Pacific War, World War I in Timeline-191, World War II in Timeline-191, and Utah Troubles (Turttledove's Timeline-191 series); Sixty Minute War (Mortal Engines Quartet); Idiran-Culture War (Consider Phlebas); Radiance War (Saga of the Skolian Empire); Vellanti War (Dragon Star); and Terran Federation–Bugs conflict (Starship Troopers)
 * 13 in-universe plot elements/background details for a television series - Cylon War and Destruction of the Twelve Colonies (Battelstar Galactice, both versions); Intergalactic War (Blake's 7); Robotech Wars (Robotech); Operation British, One Year War, Neo-Zeon Movements, Bloody Valentine War, and Second Bloody Valentine War (Gundum); and Shadow War, Earth Alliance Civil War, Dilgar War, and Telepath War {Babylon 5)
 * 2 in-universe plot elements/background details for a media franchise - Yuuzhan Vong invasion and Great Jedi Purge (Star Wars)
 * At a very, very rough look, some of these are likely fluff or over long, but there are also points where more information is needed than can be shoehorned into one or more parent articles. The only reasonable way to hash that out is to either nominate each of the 42 articles separately or nom them in distinct, tight groups. That would also narrow the field of interested parties that could bring information forward - for example, someone knowledgeable about British comics may have something on the notability of the Judge Dredd articles, but nothing on Turttledove's novels. - J Greb (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason the Judge Dredd article on the Atomic Wars exists is to avoid duplication of the same material in different articles. It is an event or subject referred to in several articles, and it is more economical to link to it and give it one article to describe it, rather than repeat the same info in every place where it is relevant. Richard75 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: if you look at the nominator's last 250 edits, most of them consist of proposals to delete or merge articles, instead of actually writing his own or contributing new material to Wikipedia. I know that's ad hominem so ignore it if you wish, I'm just pointing it out. Richard75 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)
 * That's a good example of the "shoehorning" issue. - J Greb (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Comment Please close this AfD and renominate in related and smaller groups, no one is going to have the time or energy to research and vote on forty different things in one AfD. There are obviously going to be some non-notable that have to be deleted, but listing so many in one AfD is purely counter-productive. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 21:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree that this should be withdrawn and these renominated in a small clump -- perhaps divided by franchise. I'm sure most of these should be nuked, but WP:PLOT is a iffy; it'll be easier to delete these per WP:RS and WP:GNG -- but RS and GNG may, in fact, exist for a few of these, just not in their present form. It'll be a smoother process all the way around if, grouped by franchise, they can be clearly brought and addressed by members of their respective wikiprojects -- some of which might actually be able to salvage a few. --EEMIV (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep all How is the Cylon War not notable enough for an article? Or the war of the Lance, which is responsible for so many bestselling novels, and the creation of a series that spawned hundreds of novels in the Dragonlance series?  Both have been featured in books, comic books, movies and television(Dragonlance was animated).  This wide spread nomination of unrelated things is apauling.  If you have a problem with a specific subject, you sincere doubt the notability of, then nominate that article by itself.  We don't need attempts at wide spread deletion of unrelated things.   D r e a m Focus  23:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep all This is nothing wrong with popular works of fiction being present in wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Speedy keep all as well as the other disruptive mass nominations currently flooding Articles for deletion that are not better. Most of these either already do or with actual articles improvement work can pass the disputed WP:PLOT and WP:GNG and certainly WP:RS.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:11, 17 July 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.