Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/League of All Worlds


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

League of All Worlds

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to me this could be merged into the appropriate book(s) or universe article. There are no references (beyond the primary source, I assume). --smurdah (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Current contents of Hainish Cycle contain sufficient information, no merge necessary.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If the information is already included there's no need for a merge. This subject is not notable apart from the parent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the original author of the article. I created it because the Hainish Cycle is way too long to add any new information to. Also the League of All Worlds and the successor Ekumen (which right now redirects back to Hainish Cycle are a very large subject spread over many books, and I am of the opinion that it definitely deserves an article of its own. The current article is just an inkling which can/should be further developed. I don't see any good reason for deleting it. Capricornis (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as important in the works, but then discuss on the talk page whether it could be integrated in the main article. I think it could be placed appropriately in the introductory section of the main article, and is not so long as to make difficulties, but the details of how to write (and subdivide and merge) articles are best discussed elsewhere. DGG (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, redundant article and not notable as a fictional alliance. Tavix (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Google book search shows that "the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." WP:BK--Jmundo (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think those sources are about this subject, but simply mention this subject in a discussion of the book. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * sources do not have to be primarily about the subject of the article. proposals to that effect have been repeatedly and decisively rejected by the community. 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources to establish facts in the article are one thing, but this is a deletion discussion about notability. If it hasn't been covered substantially in reliable independent sources, what is the basis for notability? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2008 (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.