Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Network News


 * 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. Merge discussion can continue on the article's talk page.  A  Train talk 07:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Interstellar Network News

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced, in-universe material collected from the primary source. No demonstration of real world notability. (Deleted via prod, restored via WP:REFUND.) Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - No apparent notability, and a generic term that could apply to hundreds of sci-fi works and doesn't lend itself to a redirect.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete consists entirely of in-universe plot summary (WP:NOT) and while there do seem to be mentions of it in sources which might be usable such as I don't think there's enough to establish notability or provide much of an out of universe perspective.  Hut 8.5  09:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My !vote stands after the rewrite. The article is still entirely plot summary, it's just that the plot summary is now referenced to books which give very detailed descriptions of Babylon 5 episodes. From WP:NOT: Wikipedia treats creative works...in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. I don't see any of that here.  Hut 8.5  06:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So what would you like to see me come up with in addition to what's already sourced? Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What kind of reception has the subject got? Has there been any critical analysis of its significance, how it relates to real world news networks, or other fictional news networks? How did the makers of the show come up with it, and how did they change it over time? What kind of impact or influence has the subject had on other fictional works, popular culture, or anywhere else? Any of those would do, or any other significant encyclopedic content which isn't ultimately a summary of what happens in Babylon 5 episodes.  Hut 8.5  17:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want primary sources for what the creators intended, I can do that easily. For independent RS on that specific topic, I've ordered yet another two B5 books, which will take about another week (they're used, so not prime...) to arrive. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for this to be draftified when closed if Jclemens has more sources to add later.  Hut 8.5  17:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * How very discourteous to nominate for AfD before I've had a chance to improve the article, which was restored yesterday. I'm going to add some RS'es (I have plenty of hardcopy sources), but ultimately I am planning on merging this to an as-yet-to-be-created Organizations in Babylon 5 list article. Zxcvbnm knows this, as he is a current participant in two other current AfDs for Babylon 5 fictional elements, yet has chosen to conceal his knowledge and provide a less than forthright appraisal of the article: it is both notable and redirectable. Jclemens (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather than going with the assumptions of bad faith, if you have coverage establishing the real world notability, now would be a good time to tell us what they are. Otherwise, you might ask for the current article to be moved out of mainspace so that you can work on it until it demonstrates notability. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No ABF here: your rapid nomination without discussing it with me was discourteous, in that it assumed I had no intention of fixing the problems in the article. If you'll review my recent contributions, I've been busy adding reliable sources to OTHER B5 articles nominated at AfD. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article sat for 6 years waiting for sources, then you were going to merge it or redirect it. Now, six more years have gone by and I was supposed to guess that you had plans to do all sorts of stuff? Oh, and another editor is concealing knowledge and being "less than forthright" in agreeing the article demonstrated "no apparent notability"? Let me be clear: Not to be rude but I see nothing but in-universe material. Delete, with no prejudice against the creation of other articles which might use concise summaries and serve as a target for a re-direct here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Guess? No, you weren't supposed to guess: all you had to do is ask. Why else would an established editor challenge a PROD unless they believed they could do something about it?  What motivation did you believe I had? What did you expect that I intended to do with it? Jclemens (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The cleanup request you ignored for years was the community asking you to fix it or lose it. I did not expected you to ignore the noted problems for 3 more years, have it deleted, wait three more years, then restore the article, source it, ask what the problem is, buy more books to source it, then turn it into a redirect for an as-yet uncreated page. I also didn't ask if this time you were actually going to do something with the article. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, your chronology is incorrect. I decided to merge it this weekend when I noticed it had been deleted via PROD, not six years ago.  Not 24 hours had passed (estimate, someone else can do a detailed chronology if desired) between when I decided to ask for it to be restored and you AfD'ed it. Jclemens (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In May of 2011, it was noted: "Completely unsourced since its creation more than six years ago and extremely unlikely to be able to be sourced except to primary sources (WP:PRIMARY). All information is in-universe plot summary. Fails WP:GNG categorically." You replied that it shouldn't be deleted, but perhaps "consider redirect or merge". Then it sat for three more years, completely untouched (save for one edit by a bot toiling away in the desert). It clearly wasn't going to be cleaned up any time soon and it still looks like "cleanup" means "delete", so I proded it in January 2014. No one said anything, so it was deleted. It remained deleted, unwept, for three more years. You then asked for it to be restored with the explanation "Expired PROD, please restore." In my rush over our deadline, I failed to understand the implied ordering of texts to finally source it before merging it to an uncreated article, after twelve years. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I had entirely forgotten about the 2011 PROD, and had no access to the history of the article before I requested it be restored, so I suppose you're correct. The 2014 PROD was, of course, out of process and illegitimate: No article is eligible for PROD a second time. Jclemens (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep by which I actually mean keep it around until I merge it into a not-yet-created Organizations in Babylon 5. I have just done an extensive rewrite, which answers all the objections of the nominator and both delete !voters. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep pending rewrite and merge. Nobody should be in the business of nominating for AfD anything refunded within the previous 24 hours, except in case of COPYVIO or BLP violations. IDONTLIKEIT is not a rationale. Newimpartial (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody should be in the business of restoring unsourced, in-universe trivia with a plan to turn the article into a redirect. IDONTLIKEIT is not the rationale given. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this a new policy I missed? Please, enlighten us. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't think we would need a policy to say, "Don't bring back long dead collections of unsourced in-universe trivia if your plan is to turn them into redirects anyway." It goes along with "Don't randomly renumber all of the mailboxes in the neighborhood." and "Don't shove sharpened pencils up your nose." They're all good suggestions that you would hope would be obvious. Incidentally, if your plan is to simply merge this with some other stuff, wouldn't the path of least resistance be to have the article saved as a draft, rename it "List of stuff in Babylon 5" (or whatever) and build that article? I mean, we'll lose all of this valuable back-and-forth about the discourteousness and hidden agendas and such, but you'll have time to wait for your sources to show up. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the value in that. Drafts used to be a safe place to store "useful someday" stuff, but G13 has eliminated that.  But really: merging isn't redirecting, bringing back stuff to work on it isn't harmful, and mainspace is not limited to things currently meeting guidelines.  Note that I've never accused anyone of having any hidden agendas, merely pointed out that subsequent !votes in connected AfDs should not intentionally ignore the editor's participation in connected discussions. Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Previously, this article did not meet guidelines and was abandoned for years, leading to its deletion. Now you've brought it back and seem to want to keep it without having it meet guidelines, even if it is abandoned in that state.
 * Yes, abandoned drafts will be deleted under G13. If you don't want a draft to be deleted, don't abandon it. Draft space is not for "storing" stuff that might be useful someday. It is for working on articles that don't yet meet guidelines. Actually no part of Wikipedia is a junk drawer for saving bits of string, twist ties and archaic connectors that you might need some day. Wikipedia deletes abandoned drafts.
 * Yes, article space is limited to things that meet inclusion guidelines. That's what the guidelines are for: deciding what should and should not be in article space. To argue otherwise is absurd. Wikipedia limits article space to articles that are suitable for inclusion.
 * Yes, you can bring stuff back to work on it, but it doesn't go in article space until it is ready for article space. How do we know when it's ready? When it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Draft space is for working on articles that aren't ready for article space.
 * Yes, you did accuse an editor of "(choosing) to conceal his knowledge and provide a less than forthright appraisal". What is that editor trying to do? We don't know. Their plan is concealed -- a "hidden agenda". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Mainspace is not solely for things that currently meet guidelines: there are plenty of things that have been tagged for notability or as unsourced for years. I don't think you're denying their existence.  Yes, stuff that doesn't meet guidelines but can meet those guidelines should be worked on in mainspace: without mainspace, there are essentially no eyes on a topic.  If you could, would you wipe out every article with a cleanup tag on it, and not return it to mainspace until it was perfect?  Then you'd be letting the perfect be the enemy of the good--or even 'adequate'--and in the process removing much of Wikipedia's utility. The existence of draft space doesn't fundamentally change the tolerance for incomplete yet useful articles having potential in mainspace, no matter how much you might prefer that it does.  If you thought the article should have gone elsewhere to be worked on, that difference of opinion could easily have been resolved with a small modicum of communication, which you chose not to exercise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talk • contribs) 18:02, October 5, 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's cut right to the chase: We are here discussing whether or not the article should be deleted. The reason put forth to delete it is that it does not meet our guidelines. Your counter-argument, it would seem, is that not meeting our guidelines is irrelevant. Article space, in your opinion then, is for articles that meet our guidelines or don't. Draft space, rather than being for preliminary articles, you feel is for storing stuff that might be useful someday. Abandoned drafts, like this one, you feel should be moved into article space to protect them from being deleted as abandoned drafts. Is that about right? I think we need to userfy the article or make it a draft with the clear understanding that yes, Wikipedia deletes abandoned drafts and no, Wikipedia is not a place for storing stuff that might be useful someday. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Does the article meet guidelines as it stands? Absolutely: multiple independent RS'es discuss it in detail.  Should it have been AfD'ed just because it didn't currently meet the guidelines? That is where we differ: I say no, not unless it's demonstrated that it cannot meet guidelines.  You disagree. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Summarizing your position: It should be merged or redirected. Wait, no: It should be an article. Wait, no: That's only until you merge it into a new article. Wait, no: It will meet guidelines as soon as my sources arrive from the antiquarian bookseller in Milan. Wait, no: don't make it a draft, that used to be storage for stuff that might be useful someday, but since they delete abandoned stuff there we should re-abandon it it article space where inclusion guidelines don't matter. Wait, no: It's WP:USEFUL.
 * Wait, no: Just no. I remain on the delete side, with no objection to userfy or draftify. But not as permanent storage because it might be useful someday. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular reason you're being so unpleasant? Of course I believe it meets guidelines, and the fact that I'm trying to answer objections I consider unreasonable and unfounded does not invalidate or compromise my position.  It meets notability, and could easily be kept per guidelines.  BUT, I think it's better presented in a list format, even if it is notable.  If you'd bothered to actually ask me what I intended to do by asking for it back, this entire kerfuffle could have readily been avoided. As of now, it's sticking around in mainspace because you nominated at AfD; otherwise, it may well have been merged by now. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular reason your assessment of other editors {"discourteous", "conceal his knowledge", "less than forthright", "unpleasant", "unreasonable", etc.) might be relevant here?
 * We're here to discuss whether or not this article meets our guidelines. Yes, Wikipedia deletes abandoned drafts. No, that's not a reason to put what might be a draft into article space. Yes, there are articles that do not meet guidelines. No, that doesn't mean we should ignore guidelines to let this one in. Yes, maybe you want to merge it (or is that a redirect? or maybe those sources will arrive? or none of the above?). No, that doesn't explain why you object to making it a draft or putting it in user space. Yes, you want the decision on this article to be "keep", promising that you'll then merge it to some future article, or demonstrate notability, or redirect it, or store it in case it is useful someday. No, that doesn't make sense. If you have a notable topic for an article that you're gonna kinda maybe someday write, tucking this possible piece of that puzzle into draft or user space gives you time to do that, provided the article isn't abandoned again. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We're not here to discuss letting it in: it was in. It was temporarily removed against guidelines, but it's not like anyone is proposing a new article from scratch, merely trying to repair what had been out-of-process deleted already.  You do acknowledge that WP:PROD did not apply to the article when you applied it, I presume? Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge per Jclemens. This probably shouldn't have it's own article, but can very justifiably be upmerged into a parent article. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Draftify or userfy. I used to be opposed to userspace in general, preferring draftspace as a place where articles could be worked on before they're ready for prime time.  But, there's been a whole lot of hating on draft space lately (i.e. the G13 nonsense), so maybe userspace is a safer harbor now.  In any case, it sounds like this isn't ready for mainspace yet, but there's a plan to work on it, so move it someplace where it can be worked on.  When/if it meets mainspace requirements, it can get moved back there (perhaps under a different title).  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , would you object to me merging it directly into a list article? Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. I wrote above, it sounds like this isn't ready for mainspace yet.  So, yes, I would object.  -- RoySmith (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , what would you like to see improved about this article before agreeing that a merge to a list article of similar elements would be appropriate? Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Talk page is currently a red link, which proves that there was no attempt to discuss concerns about the topic before it was nominated.  As per WP:BEFORE C3, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as, , , or  ; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it."  Looks like instead that only 7 hours elapsed before there was an AfD tag on the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Actually, the redlink proves the talk page was deleted with the article three years ago. The article was tagged as unsourced. That tag stayed in place for two years before it was tagged for deletion: "Completely unsourced since its creation more than six years ago and extremely unlikely to be able to be sourced except to primary sources (WP:PRIMARY). All information is in-universe plot summary. Fails WP:GNG categorically." The article's main defender, Jclemens, removed that prod, suggesting it be redirected or merged somewhere. It then sat for a few more years with zero edits, tagged as unsourced the whole time. I then tagged it as in-universe and not notable. Seeing it hadn't been touched in roughly six years, I decided to prod some editors into action, so to speak. That prod lead to a deletion. Three years after that, Jclemens had the article restored. Why? Because "Expired PROD, please restore." Summary: Before we got here, it was tagged as unsourced for six years. It then spent two weeks tagged as in-universe, not notable, waiting to be deleted because it lacked evidence of real world notability, along with the unsourced tag. Did anyone WP:BEFORE C3 "(add) a cleanup tag"? Yes. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep NPASR And now we know that you put an AfD tag on half of this article, and that it is impossible for editors to assess this article.  It is the nominator's role to prepare the community for a deletion discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking your !vote based on BEFORE.
 * I'm rather confused as to the explanation for your new !vote. NPASR discusses options if there are "few or no comments...with no one opposing deletion" and opting for "no consensus", allowing for a speedy renomination. It seems there are more than a few editors commenting (8 !votes), there is opposition and you are asking for a "keep", not a no consensus.
 * I do not know what you mean by saying I nominated "half of this article". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The "half" is a metric that considers the "Article" and "Talk" tabs at the top as a group of 2; and counts the non-red tabs within that group. Do you agree that this AfD cannot proceed?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources - the only coverage I see is embedded inside routine coverage of the main topic. And saying the material is going to be used in a different article is not a valid argument for the existence of this particular article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Embedded inside routine coverage of the main topic' is a novel objection. Which policy requires that independent RS coverage have that additional attribute? Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This article fails WP:N and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wekpidea (talk • contribs) 18:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what part of WP:NOTREPOSITORY are you referencing? Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge per Jclemens. -- Begoon 23:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note Interacting with Babylon 5 and Creating Babylon 5 both arrived today, and I've integrated both into the article. Both RS'es deal with ISN, but not in as much specificity and depth as I would have hoped. Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2017 (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.