Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of regions of space in the Honorverse


 * 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,  Nakon  05:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

List of regions of space in the Honorverse

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

There are no reliable independent sources that establish the geographic regions of space in these works of fiction or otherwise make this a topic on its own that would pass the notability guidelines here. While I'm sure it's of some interest as a plot element that "such and such" is in "secton b" which is "very far away" from the homeworld, there is no out of universe value to any of that. It's plot elements about stuff being near, or far, or in proximity to some other plot element. Please, wikipedia is not a fan-site. Bali ultimate (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC) ''You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of GFDL). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy. This is not an issue, however, if the merged content is not merely copied and pasted, but instead completely rewritten so that only uncopyrightable facts are transferred, not copyrightable expression.'' Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatant fancruft. eaolson (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep plausible fork-for-length of Honorverse. JJL (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with the list of planets and list of nations to create a List of locations in the Honorverse 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 06:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 06:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete — non-notable, excessive unsourced detail. No objection to Wikia having it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with the list of planets and list of nations to create a List of locations in the Honorverse. Three articles become one. Obvious best solution. Debresser (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made the proposal of all three articles and am willing to carry it out right away. Debresser (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See: Guide to deletion especially:
 * That's why I'm waiting. Debresser (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * cool; I was concerned about the 'right away'. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I meant "right away" if a merge would get consensus (which it deserves). Debresser (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. Being able to identify the various locations is an important aspect of being able to understand the plot of these books; without the ability to refer to some form of description of these locations the plot summaries would become rather difficult to understand.  Merging the information into the plot summaries would be an incorrect approach as that would lead to unnecessary duplication, and increase the length of the plot summaries to an unacceptable degree, therefore this information should not be deleted.  There is no need for multiple articles to exist, however. JulesH (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Any reviewing admin, please be aware that Debresser has engaged in canvassing over this AfD, specifically asking certain editors to come support him. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See my talk page that I've informed just those four editors (and they haven't show up yet), because they have contributed significantly to Honorverse articles in the past and have partaken in other discussions about Honorverse articles as well, but for one reason or the other hadn't expressed their opinion here yet. It is true that I asked them to support the merge option, unaware that I wasn't supposed to do so. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I've added this comment to keep my good faith reputation. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE DELETION, MILD SUPPORT FOR MERGE, OPPPOSE DELETION FLURRY:
 * I AM a reviewing admin, and am one of the editors Debresser informed in the alleged 'canvassing'. I had already responded to such a proposal at Treecat and List of treecats before hearing from Debresser, with whom my only prior interaction was a long running and still continuing dispute over the accuracy of a phrase he has inserted into all the Honorverse articles. I'm not the sort of admin who spends much time on the various deletion lists or referring such in any case, but thanks for the concern to avoid wasting my time. And thanks to Debresser for alerting me to what seems to have become a concerted campaign in favor of deleting Honorverse articles.
 * I understand the motives in this, and in several other prior cases, surrounding the Weber books, but disagree with the understanding of WP policy reflected by this flurry of deletion requests, page blanking, and so on. I do not defend the prose quality of any of these articles (well, with the possible exception of Treecat, to which I've contributed), but note WP articles have a typical life cycle, during which editors attempt to improve their quality. I've been a significant contributors to several Featured Articles and so have some understanding of that life cycle. Indeed some of those articles have been degraded by subsequent editors and have lost their FA status, another aspect of that life cycle.
 * In this case, I disagree with the over exclusionist take on WP policy. It's one of a series of such nominations, all seemingly from the same wrong take on WP policy. Certainly the content of this (and all articles) should be improved, and perhaps our Gentle Reader would be better served by a merged article as suggested by Debresser above. So I, mostly, favor the suggested merge.
 * I MOST DEFINITELY do NOT favor deletion of content from WP. WP is intended to be a general purpose encyclopedia, and a fictional series with multiple books, multiple bestsellers, an active discussion group (on the publisher's site), and multiple writers contributing to stories in the universe, certainly has a place in WP. The series is broadly satirical of historical events (eg, the French Revolution) and the vices and virtues of centralized government (eg, Communist totalitarianism), and has a distinct perspective on cultural economic policy (eg, SKM taxation policy, ...), includes humorous stories, etc.
 * If this series and the subsidiary articles are alleged to fail WP policy, then all fiction must necessarily do so as well. Such things as the Hornblower series, the O'Brien Aubrey/Maturin series, Faulkner's Y... County series, J D McDonald's Travis McGee books, Robert Heinlein's Future History series or World as Myth series, Larry Niven's Known Space series, Spider Robinson's Callahan series, and so on and on. There is no possibility that such a fictional series would have references in the real world, except the accidental ones. McGee living on a houseboat he won in a poker game, and being based in Florida, or Hornblower living and sailing in the era of the Napoleonic Wars, or similar trivia. And still less for the science fiction series, based as they mostly are in space to which even accidental reference is so far impossible. Such a connection should not justify presence on WP and if it does (or lack of such justifies exclusion) WP's mission will have been seriously violated. ww (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hadn't commented on this article, not realizing yet another Honorverse article had been nominated for deletion. There was no Rescue tag to bring attention towards it, and its not listed on any of the AFD categories I regularly check.   D r e a m Focus  14:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a legitimate list, for a notable aspect of a popular series. There is enough valid information to fill its own article, so no need combining it with another which would cause that one to become too long.  D r e a m Focus  14:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm trying to understand the "in-universe" argument. It's fiction.  FICTION.  As a result, the only "out-universe" kind of fiction which might not be susceptible to that "in-universe" statement is a soap opera or maybe some kind of historical drama.  Any science fiction or fantasy is going to be "in-universe".  Since many of the people who contribute to Wikipedia are computer literate, they also tend to be science fiction and fantasy fans, meaning that such is going to be the kind of stuff they will contribute.  If you ban it, you eliminate a large part of what people here will be interested in, will be looking for, and will contribute.
 * More, it's popular fiction, which makes it notable. Just because the exclusionists here don't like it is immaterial as to whether it belongs here.  Or are you trying to drive many Wiki editors away? - Denimadept (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you've misunderstood completely. Notable works of fiction are covered at wikipedia. However, works of fiction have things embedded within them that, while notable in that fictional universe, are not notable in the real world -- hence the "in-universe" distinction. Now, some aspects of fiction get substantial real world scholarship and interest, which explains why we might have an article on Jay Gatsby or Yoknapatawpha County (though just reviewing this last, it's a tragic excuse for an article on a fictional place, and i'll fix it myself later today). In those two and many other cases, these aspects of fiction have demonstrable real world notability, which is kind of the minimum for inclusion in a real-world encyclopedia. List of regions of space in Honorverse? Not so much.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, Jay Gatsby is just a redirect to that novel. I guess the academic sources i assumed would be there aren't even there for him and this highly notable fictional character (extensive independent reportage and scholarship on him) was deemed insufficiently notable outside of his universe.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. So a fictional element needs to be around for 80 or so years in order for people have time to publish about it?  Kinda excludes almost every contemporary writer from consideration.  Sorry, not really buying that argument.  - Denimadept (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not 80 years. Not any kind of time limit. We just will write an encyclopedia article about a fictional element apart from the work of fiction that contains it when there's sufficient independent coverage to allow for verification, establish notability, etc... we shouldn't write articles in the hopes that some day something may become independently notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We often split articles when they get too large, or when the focus becomes too diffuse. - Denimadept (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, see User:ww's post, above. He takes what I've said and goes much further with it. - Denimadept (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The merge proposal to "list of locations" has some merit as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for clearly failing WP:NOT. Zero notability asserted either. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 08:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to list of locations. Reasonable breakout article per WP:WAF. Hobit (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as indiscriminate and unreferenced listcruft, clutter. --EEMIV (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The argument "Listcruft" = I don't like it. Not indiscriminate because it does not in fact include every possible location, as a fan site would. There is no general agreement about what notability criteria apply to fictional elements, but that's not even relevant: this is a a combination article for many things which probably are less than notable. The individual parts of an article do not have to be individually notable, or every paragraph of Wikipedia would be a separate article. Handling them this way is an appropriate compromise. Refusal to accept articles like this is essentially a refusal to accept any compromise on fiction, for it is only through such articles that a compromise is reachable. DGG (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * comment I think it would be appropriate for whoever closes this to be someone who has not closed other articles on this general topic. DGG (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as Listcruft, which doesn't mean that I don't like it. Listcruft means that the subject matter isn't appropriate for a list. There are many things that are not appropriate for an encyclopedia and many valid points listed at the listcruft essay and none of them constitute "I don't like it". This list violates WP:WAF and WP:N as it is a fully in-universe plot summary of a fictional world.  Wikipedia articles must be backed up, per WP:WAF, by real-world notability as notability isn't inherited from its parent topic.  The individual list as a spinout topic, must be notable under WP:N to have a separate article in the mainspace.  I also note that the article currently contains zero sources for verification although it has been at AfD for a full 7 days.  Either nobody wants to clean this up, or it just can't be done.  This is what AfD is for, to get rid of articles that cannot be properly sourced.  As it stands this is original research and just that alone is grounds for deletion.  Them  From  Space  05:15, 23 April 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.