Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Path (Dune)


 * 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 Redirect. The article had been redirected during this AfD and consensus was to keep the redirect. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Golden Path (Dune)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fictional, uh, philosophy (concept?). No evidence of notability. BEFORE fails to find any in-depth coverage outside primary sources. Since an anon keeps disputing the prod and later redirect, I guess we need to get pro forma consensus for this here (and then I'd suggeast semi-protecting the redirect). Ping User:TAnthony who redirected this to Children of Dune with " this is plot and fancruft sourced back to the novels themselves, with no assertion of independent notability". Through in all honesty, I am not sure if this is a likely searchable term, so a regular deletion is probably fine here too, no need to redirect / semi on second thought. PS. Also ping User:Rosguill who restored the redirect at the same time I posted this AfD. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: This has been turned into a redirect, and it looks like it was never properly nominated for deletion here anyway - perhaps this should be closed, and we could revisit if the article ends up recreated? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Redirect: I would prefer that the redirect not be deleted, as it is linked in some Dune-related articles. We also have the disambig page The Golden Path, which suggests that "Golden Path" itself is a likely searchable term, and so any disambiguation is helpful. As far as a formal AfD goes, I finally boldly redirected the damn thing last year because it has been in this sorry, unsourced fancruft state for like 15 years. As Piotrus says, the article did not include any in-depth coverage outside primary sources, and as someone who has researched Dune topics to improve articles, there's not a lot to be found that would make this topic worthy of a standalone article like this. I'm not really concerned about the random IPs who have come along over time to dispute the prod and then make no effort to improve the article or even comment on the talk page. I'm not sure we'll get a lot of participation in this discussion so I like J Milburn's suggestion that we table this until someone tries to recreate it. Although, I would argue that if it is just restored and no effort is made to actually add helpful citations or defend the article's merit in discussion, it should be redirected again with no fanfare. I don't think it's right that an anonymous editor who simply hits the revert button on a whim without explanation and then goes on his merry way should be allowed to waste our time.— TAnthonyTalk 22:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am fine with this being kept a redirect; as I noted in the AfD rationale, I nominated it in the brief moment it was recreated again as a stand-alone article (then it was redirected again). I just feel the redirect can be considered challenged, so I am hoping for an AFD verdict of 'redirect' here. And possibly a semi-protection of said redirect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Make it a redirect - I agree. The topic doesn't have the independent coverage that we need in order to maintain a separate article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2020 (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.