Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aral Vorkosigan


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 09:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Aral Vorkosigan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Declined prod, so now we get to waste our time here. I don't think there is anything here to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Much as I like the Vorkosigan books, I don't think they have hit the critical mass of actually being studied and reviewed by people to have the intricacies of the setting be encyclopedic. That this article is referenced to primary sources, meaning this article is a secondary source (at best), is just the cherry on top. Rockphed (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. WP:PROD and WP:AFD are not the only options with these. If you're concerned about saving time, boldly redirecting might work. Nominating these as a group would also save time., are you trying to make a point by running these all individually through WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with a tool that makes group AfDs easy, and they are too easy to 'torpedo' by the all too common super inclusionists / fanboys. If there is a point it is that your spurious deprods ended up spamming AfD with ~15 effectively uncontested and consensus for delete new threads. Perhaps we should discuss on AN whether you should not be banned from WP:PROD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that WP:ANI discussion has already been done and my WP:PRODPATROLLING was found to be what PROD patrolling is supposed to be. Making threats and writing off others as fanboys presents a potential WP:BOOMERANG issue for you. From my perspective, you are the one who initiated all of this "spam" by eschewing WP:ATD and bringing them to PROD and now individually to AFC. ~Kvng (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to be on Piotrus's side for this one, as your DEPROD rationale made absolutely no sense. "Consider merge or redirect per WP:ATD". There are no sources in the article, so "merge" is already out of the question, per the extremely basic concept of WP:RS. The only plausible option in this scenario is improve the article (if possible) or boldly redirect it, and you did neither.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did miss an opportunity to do bold redirects. Sorry about that. Piotrus missed two such opportunities. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was and am expecting another inclusionist from the WP:ITSIMPORTANT camp to simply revert any redirect. AfD at least give a 'stamp' that prevents sneaky undoing of redirects (I am not saying you do sneaky undo of redirects, but I have seen such outcome, i.e. sneaky undo of redirects by some other editors, before. As such, I feel that if a prod is contested with a bad rationale, redirects are just a waste of time without an AfD to back such outcome). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your thinking. The few sneaky redirect reverts I've seen are most often in good faith. Although there is technically no such thing as a bad DEPROD rationale I appreciate that mass-DEPRODDING is potentially WP:DISRUPTIVE. Unless there's reasonable indicatition in the PROD rationale why this is not a good idea, I will continue to DEPROD or boldly redirect PRODs that have an obvious redirect opportunity. This includes things like songs on notable albums, albums by notable artists, books by notable authors and characters etc. in notable books. These tend to be potential search terms and, your concerns about sneaky reverts notwithstanding, redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom. We don't need a redirect for every minor Joe Schmoe character in a work of fiction, esp. one that is not backed up by any reliable source.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable. There's nothing to merge, so deletion with a new redirect makes the most sense. TTN (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2019 (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.