Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandersnatch (Known Space) (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus between keep and merge, so default to keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Bandersnatch (Known Space)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

In the two years since the last AFD, no reliable sources have emerged that demonstrate that this fictional species is independently notable. Subject is covered at the article for the fictional universe/series. Otto4711 (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notice how many books and short stories the award winning and highly praised influential science fiction writer created? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Niven#Bibliography This is a significant part of that fictional universe. There is enough information to warrant its own article.   D r e a m Focus  19:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The notability of the author does not mean that every aspect of every piece of his fiction inherits his notability. Please cite reliable sources that are substantively about this fictional species. Otto4711 (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There appears to be enough info for a standalone article, it just needs to be referenced better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete . They're already appropriately covered in Known Space (which is a terrible article), and there's little if anything else published on them, near as I can tell. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has nothing significant on them (I have the '93 edition but this is forty-year-old SF anyway), Google Books hasn't heard of them beyond hits in Niven's books, and even some usenet digging hasn't gotten anything. Anyone suggesting that this simply be "referenced better" needs to come up with some ideas where to look. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mm. Merge if someone does something with those sources, redirect if nobody does. There's something here. Not an article's worth, but something. 13:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with Bandersnatch, leaning to merge, this article does not explain the origin of this strange word, whereas the Bandersnatch article does. We could cut and paste this information nicely into the existing article. Ikip (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is mentioned in . Also in an article in the Chicago Tribune: Fences and windows (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in... is not the standard for notability. I am mentioned in more sources than this fictional species, does that make me notable? No. Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Being "mentioned" in a book or a newspaper article does not meet this standard. Otto4711 (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidently notable. I have added some citations. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources significantly cover this fictional species? Otto4711 (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the article and discussion above. Also, please see WP:BEFORE and WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The so-called "sources" on the article are not significantly about this particular fictional species. Simply mentioning a particular fictional species in a source that is not significantly about that species does not establish the independent notability of that species, as even the most basic understanding of WP:RS and WP:N amply demonstrates. Throwing out BEFORE seems to have become a favorite tactic of the extreme inclusionists who never met an article they didn't insist should be kept without regard to its utter failures of bedrock policies and guidelines in an attempt to discredit people who nominate articles for deletion. NOEFFORT is simply meaningless to this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your views on the significance of the sources as, along with the original works, they seem quite adequate to support the article. WP:BEFORE is relevant in that, in the previous AFD you indicated that the article should be merged.  Merger is a good alternative to deletion and you fail to indicate why this is no longer appropriate.  WP:NOEFFORT indicates that your argument that the article has not been improved since the last AFD is a poor one.  These poor arguments are common at AFD and perhaps this is why you keep encountering these rebuttals. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the relevant policies and guidelines regarding sources? Did you miss the bit in WP:N that states clearly that passing mentions of a subject do not and cannot establish notability? Did you miss the bit about how non-primary sources (in other words, something other than "original works") are necessary to establish notability? My comment at the last AFD was "merge and delete" because I did not know at the time that this was not possible. Thus, having learned otherwise, I say straight delete because there is nothing in this article that should be in the main article, since this article consists of nothing but in-universe description which is more than adequately covered already in the main article. NOEFFORT remains irrelevant because I am not claiming that no one has worked on the article in the last two years. I am saying that two years ago there were no reliable sources supporting the independent notability of this fictional species and two years later there are still no sources. Find one, just one independent reliable source that covers this fictional species in a significant fashion. Just one. All you have to do is find one. It's so easy to claim that they exist, yet when asked to supply them they never seem to appear. Otto4711 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read WP:N. It does not use the words "passing mention" and so yet again your comment seems to be an empty assertion, not based upon any accurate research. The example provided of a trivial mention is not applicable to this case, in which the sources are concerned with matters connected with the topic.  In such cases, the issue is a matter of partitioning the topic(s) into articles of a sensible size and configuration.  Where some adjustment seems appropriate then merger/splitting is appropriate.  Deletion is never appropriate because it would remove useful search terms and edit history. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletion is never appropriate Well, that pretty much says it all, doesn't it. You want everything kept, policies and guidelines be damned. The question remains, find even one single source that is significantly about this fictional species. Come on "colonel". Just one source. Just one. You can't do it, because there are no such sources, which means that this fictional species is not notable. Of course you'll never admit that, because "deletion is never appropriate", right? Otto4711 (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My meaning is that deletion is not appropriate in such cases. Also, please see negative proof. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What's being demanded is not a negative proof. You're being asked to show a single example of your positive claim, that sources exist. (That said, it's kind of unnecessarily combative; this will be a redir to Known Space in a month's time.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * One- or two-sentence definition merge and redirect to Known Space. Insignificant component of the fictional world. --EEMIV (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already covered in the Known Space article. Otto4711 (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * merge and redirect to Known Space (or simply redirect, if already covered).YobMod 10:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator this article has gone through improvements since its nomination, with several references added. Ikip (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to known space (i'm a niven fan, but this is a fictional creature of no established, separate notability).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The combination of notability in the series, notability of the author, notability among xenobiologists and not least significantly the notable inclusion in the Library of Congress on regards to alien life. The article needs expansion, not deletion. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:04, 17 May 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.