Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanx Commonwealth planets


 * 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   keep/merge. There is consensus here to retain the main list, and to accommodate much of the content from the other individual articles somewhere. Magioladitis has smerged many of these articles to Humanx Commonwealth, which is a good point to start addressing this situation from. Recommend that a central discussion be started at Talk:List of Humanx Commonwealth planets on how best to incorporate the individual articles and see if there is consensus for a mass merge. Should this discussion falter, the articles should be relisted in smaller batches. Skomorokh 23:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Humanx Commonwealth planets

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

This article and all article linked within it lack notability. Should be deleted or merged to Humanx Commonwealth RadioFan (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similarly not notable.

Additionally, I'm nominating the following related pages about characters within the Humanx universe. They should also be deleted or merged into the main article.


 *  Delete  -- All linked articles are about fictional planets that just are not notable -- Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 14:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge -- The claim of non-notability is, of course, preposterous, but there's a good case to be made for merger -- the list is short enough not to overbalance the host article, and probably too short to stand on its own. RandomCritic (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - notability is demonstrated by references to 3rd party sources. These articles have none.  Even once merged into the parent article, references are still required.--RadioFan (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - I wasn't quite finished listing the nominated articles when the above 2 !votes were posted.  The last 4 articles in the list above were added to the list after the above comments were made.--RadioFan (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Discussions for similar but separately nominated templates/article:
 * Templates for deletion
 * Articles for deletion/Annubis (fictional planet)
 * Articles for deletion/Cachalot (fictional planet)
 * --RadioFan (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete some, merge others - Looking at the other articles added I can't see what makes them in anyway notable either. I do like the way RandomCritic put it though - "The claim of non-notability is, of course, preposterous" - I would support a merger for the planets and another for the species. I've updated my vote accordingly. -- Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 14:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment None of these articles have references and I'm not finding references outside of the books themselves. Will merged articles be similarly unreferenced?--RadioFan (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete after looking at the two planets in stand-alone AfDs, I looked at the rest of the stuff in the navbox; it's all non-notable stubby in-universe stuff. nb: AAnn seems to be asserting that it's a copyvio. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the list, merge the planets into it. That's how we deal with excessively fine granulation in fictional articles: put 'em in a list. Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge list entries; Keep the List. Individual entries lack notability on their own, but they would be fine in the expository context of the aforementioned list. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * keep list and merge entries into it. Artw (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Though Humanx Commonwealth might be a better merge target. Artw (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the resulting content doesn't make that article too long, I don't have a problem with that. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the planets and the characters. Redirect the list to Humanx Commonwealth. It's quite obvious. All these planets don't have any real world significance, the articles gave no readl world information and fictional planets are a common subject in... science fiction. Every science fiction novel about other civilitations includes and some fictional planets. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge nothing — anyone actually look? damn near the same drivel is already there (*both* theres). Sheesh. Jack Merridew 06:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * &hellip; which makes step #2 of the merger process a very easy one. It does not magically change a merger into a deletion. Uncle G (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 06:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 06:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 06:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge all relevant information from the plants, into one area. Make sure to keep anything not already there.  Keep Aann, it having enough valid information to have its own article.  Merge the other animals into one place, they short enough to fit together.  Preserve, do not destroy.   D r e a m Focus  19:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Every time a sci-fi book is released we will be creating redirects for every single made-up word is used? I hope not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? Redirects are cheap--look at WP:REDIRECT for all their possible uses. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don;t agree with that. I think we have to evaluate somehow the information. I don't like the idea that Wikipedia can become an indisciminant collection of everything. If we have a book series, you should descrube the book elements as they appear in the books, as part of their plot. We can do more things if some of these elements are described from third party sources. That redirects are cheap that doesn't imply that we create a redirect for every possible word, otherwise we ll end up taking a phone catalog and create articles and redirects for evry single person in this planet (and if we extend our work in science fiction, in other planets as well). -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and consider separately. A good case can me made for merging most of these, but the merits of each article depend on its particular use in the series (setting for one novel versus five, for example).  In any event, several of these (Hivehom, Tran-Ky-Ky, Thranx, AAnn) should certainly be kept as redirects as they are likely search terms for information about the series.  Eluchil404 (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note these changes that happenned recently. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the main one, and then discuss separately for each article whether it is appropriate to  merge, or whether any  actually do warrant a separate article . I'd be surprised if many did, but I'm not going to try to decide that 20 articles at a time. And nominating the combination article along with the detailed ones is the sort of procedure that destroys any hope of  compromise on fictional topics. We came pretty near, and perhaps we can get there by consistently keeping all such combination articles at AfD.    DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the List should be nominated separately and after the discussion for the rest. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the list. Merge all the planets into the list. Yob  Mod  15:44, 17 August 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.