Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Network News (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 delete. ST47 (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Interstellar Network News
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am getting Spoo (food) vibes here: A well-sourced article from the B5 franchise about a fictional item of minor importance (i.e. it's not even mentioned in the Babylon 5 main article) relying on WP:PRIMARY. Spoo (a former featured article) was eventually found to not be WP-article-worthy (Articles for deletion/Spoo (3rd nomination)). Civilizations in Babylon 5 is a possible merge target, but this topic doesn't really fit there either. Opinions? – sgeureka t•c 08:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t•c 08:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. I was thinking about this for a while (wow, missed Articles for deletion/Spoo (3rd nomination) - it was even a former FA... how our standards are changing). Anyway, this is a PLOT with some minor analysis. The problem is that references for that analysis are problematic. The Babylon File (which might be notable on its own as a book) is not a scholarly work, just an unofficial omnibus/analysis by Andy Lane. is a mention in passing, as is everything else. This kind of an entry belongs at https://babylon5.fandom.com/wiki/Interstellar_Network_News not on Wikipedia, since the real world significance of this fictional organization is very debatable. I am open to revising this if someone can point out at least a paragraph of analysis (not plot summary) in any decent source.  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Complete fictional universe-cruft and Wikia-grade material.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Still meets WP:GNG, just like after it was improved last time. WP:ATD were proposed in that discussion, which have not been done.  So why is this nominated, again? Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, as the owner of every single one of the references here, none are WP:PRIMARY; all are independent secondary sources. That is, unless 'primary' now means 'any secondray source which only focuses on analysis of one major topic'... Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * PRIMARY (to me) means it is either a retelling of the plot (i.e you might just as well source it to the work of fiction, regardless of if you also found the info in a secondary source), or it's the creator talking about his invention. The latter is more about WP:N concerns (which I also have), the former about WP:NOT, which says "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." There is hardly anything in this article that satisfies either point to justify a stand-alone article. – sgeureka t•c 17:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't even know why I bother. The cast of deletionists here hasn't changed, nor have the arguments: "it's too trivial, it's not analytical enough, it's cruftycruftycruft..." And again, nary a finger lifted to actually edit things--just delete, or if that doesn't work, redirect to a list, then trim, then nominate for deletion... By all means, continue deleting fictional elements notable enough to appear in multiple dead tree books, because that is how to best improve Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * With a bunch of GAs and FAs on fiction(al elements) under my belt, I like to believe that I have a fairly good understanding of what's trivial when WP:Writing about fiction. This article topic, sadly, appears to fall into this category. – sgeureka t•c 08:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - The current sourcing is trivial. TTN (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am uncertain if the topic has enough coverage for stand-alone notability. Given the more limited coverage available, I could understand a redirect or merge as a valid suggestion rather deletion per WP:ATD, but I am uncertain on what the redirect or merge target would be for this case? As the nominator already mentions, this really does not fit in Civilizations in Babylon 5 so is there an alternative? Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If anything, only the last paragraph of Interstellar Network News seems merge-worthy. I could see it getting merged to Babylon 5, but that article is already a GA, and I don't want to pollute it with unnecessary stuff. Then there is Civilizations in Babylon 5 and Babylon 5 (fictional space station), but these articles have problems themselves and will probably get up-merged to List of Babylon 5 characters and List of starships in Babylon 5 someday, where the INN wouldn't fit either. – sgeureka t•c 10:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response, and I agree. This would seem to minor for the main Babylon 5 article and since there is not a good redirect/merge target, I would lean more toward delete. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 28 November 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.