Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lying Bastard


 * 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. Although the effort to find sources during AFD is both commendable and encouraging, the article lacks encyclopedic content and is largely synthesized from own research in primary sources. It is unclear what material in the article that the sources provided supports. It is also not known what depth is of the coverage in said sources, or to what extent they are independent of the subject. The consensus of this discussion is to delete the article. I recommend that interested editors should create a userspace version and move it to mainspace once it is more suitable. I will userfy it for anyone who wishes to persue that task.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Lying Bastard

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

This fictional ship does not establish notability independent of Known Space through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- this article has no sources and the subject does not have the necessary demonstrated real-world impact to justify an article. Reyk  YO!  20:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Again, with no notice, I was able to find and add a good source for this topic which demonstrates that the above opinions are based upon a lack of knowledge of the topic and a failure to respect our editing policy and deletion process. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You sourced a primary piece of information. How does that invalidate my claims that the topic does not follow the notability guideline, which requires sources that address the topic from the real world? TTN (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment is puzzling since the source is a work of literary analysis and invalidates your claims completely. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter is the work is the Encyclopædia Britannica; if it only addresses a primary piece of information, it does not help with notability. Now, if you add an analysis from the book pertaining to the topic, that'll be another story entirely. If simply being mentioned in a book was a good way to establish notability, I'm sure that WP:WAF would mention it. TTN (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is blatantly not true. If Britannica covers a topic it's notable merely by being covered in a notable encyclopedia. What you seem to be saying is that the source needs to be critical about the topic. But that's not what the guidelines say. They only mention non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. If a sufficiently extended, the way it is covered doesn't matter. - Mgm|(talk) 00:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What you seem to be saying is that I not only have to find a source, I also have to rewrite the article during the AFD. Your demand is quite improper at this time.  If you want to poke and prod the article into a particular shape then this is done by normal content editing per WP:BEFORE - tagging, discussion, editing, etc.  AFD is not cleanup and your demands are impertinent.  Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you just have to show that the source provides some kind of real world information, which you did not do at all. You just added the reference to the end of an in-universe statement, which gives off the impression that the source does not contain any relevant information. This is asking you, who feels the topic to be notable, to actually establish notability, not make a GA class article. TTN (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This problem arises because you have made numerous nominations in a bundle without any investigation of the topic - examination of sources, discussion on talk pages, consultation of projects and the like. I find myself confronted with a stack of articles that I've mostly not looked at before and have to struggle to do lots of work all at once while I have other things to do too - domestic duties and the like.  I'm going to bed now but there are still several of your Known Space nominations that I haven't even looked at yet.  I might get to look at them tomorrow but by that time there are like to be more knee-jerk delete per noms which will have a chilling effect.  This method of proceeding seems quite improper and, per WP:BURO and WP:IMPERFECT, is no way to treat the good faith work of the editors who created these articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is sourced hanks to Colonel Warden. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Source added seems useful (although I am unable to read the text of it at the link provided, it certainly is an appropriate kind of work to provide a source for this article; I assume that the reference is not trivial due to the fact that 3 pages total are referenced.). JulesH (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He just took the pages listed within the google search. The actual topic is just listed by name within a summary of the plot used for some reason. That isn't enough to deduce if it is used in a real world manner of not. TTN (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, Merge salvageable material A solitary source for notability is rather inadequate for an article, especially once this short. I would recommend redirect but given that the term "Lying bastard" is rather common it would be inadvisable to do so. If the article (somehow) survives this AfD, I recommend a move to a disambiguation title.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Colonel Warden's start - finding one record reptty quickly suggests there will be more - notable plot element of highly notable novel series. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer actual evidence over faith-based evidence, myself. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep another example of why we should require searches before nominations. There is need for real-world information about a fictional work in general to clarify that it is fiction,, but not specific discussions about the real world significance of every part of it. discussions of fiction about fiction are just what is to be expected in sources, and in Wikipedia articles. that's why fiction is important--not because of whatever connection there may be to the real world. DGG (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel that the current notability guidelines should be changed so that they say that, please feel free to gather a consensus to do so. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: What does the source say? (I can't read it) And what's this about a mention in the encyclopaedia Britannica? I had a look at it and couldn't find anything about "lying bastard", could someone provide me with a link please. Ryan 4314   (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You can see a tiny bit of it here]. It only contains a primary overview from what is shown, so I was saying that it is completely worthless as a source for this article in that case, as would the Britannica if it happened to contain primary information on the ship. TTN (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We should perhaps make it clear that the Britannica does not have an entry upon this ship - I just checked. It is quite quite interesting to sample what they do have as articles as it seems to be quite random: Star Wars and the Twilight Saga are in but Star Trek and Harry Potter are not.  We seem to be so beyond them in coverage that we are now sui generis. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Right, well I've had a re-read of WP:N and I've googled "Lying Barstard", "Lying Barstard" "Known Space" etc etc. From the results I got back, and I know I'm gonna get a load of grief for this, but sorry guys I can't honestly see how they meet the "Reliable Sources" and "Independent of the subject" bit. Ryan 4314   (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Both sources that I have added are works of literary criticism and analysis. They are about this work of fiction and not of it.  In both cases, they have been found in university libraries which is a token of their educational merit and adequacy for our purpose here.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. A fictional spaceship from a single science-fiction novel, with not the slightest evidence of any real attention outside of or separate from that single book, nor can I imagine why there would be--unless the notion of spaceships appearing in science-fiction novels is a much rarer event than I'd been led to believe. This is, in effect, warmed-over plot summary, and not particularly distinctive warmed-over plot summary at that. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * delete or merge this article fails the notability test on its own. I do not know enough about the series to make a judgement as to whether or not it should be merged with a larger article, but I do know it should not exist on its own.Mrathel (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect/delete 90% In-universe description, and one sentence of real-world information is not going to cut it. I can't see how this topic could ever be improved beyond C-class (it's still stub or start-class at best), so it doesn't deserve an article and can be covered in a parent article just fine. I am unfamiliar with the novel series, so I can't say if the real-world sentence is non-trivial enough to merge. – sgeureka t•c 15:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable fictional spacecraft, the single source appears to be trivial/insignificant coverage, based on the gbooks link found above. The article is entirely plot summary without real-world information or context. This ship is not even mentioned in the article for the novel itself so I would say having two paragraphs of plotcrap here is crufty. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as plotcruft. Nom and Doctorfluffy say it all. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I just looked in in this again after 5 days. It is sad to see that, while we have plenty of editors prepared critcise and pontificate, no-one else was prepared to actually do any work.  Anyway, I have just added another source.  Again, it wasn't difficult and this demonstrates that, whatever problems this article has are just a matter of WP:NOEFFORT and so not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The source still doesn't address the topic from a real world perspective, so how does it do anything to help establish notability? In the very least, the other source takes a second to describe the ship. This one just makes a passing mention, which is much more worthless. You need to provide real world information if you want to make a case of this being improvable. TTN (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL Warden, you say "it's sad to see that, while we have plenty of editors prepared criticise and pontificate, no-one else was prepared to actually do any work", but conversely one could also say that it's a pity we have loads of editors saying that these articles just need "improving", and then can't be bothered to do it themselves ha ha... Ryan 4314   (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My comments were directed at all sides of the argument. In your case, you had the goodness to make a search.  It didn't seem to be a very effective search but so it goes.  As for improvement of the article, please explain why anyone should waste their time improving an article when other editors rush to delete it on the evidence of a google search or no evidence at all?  The chilling effect is sad but not surprising. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably because of WP:BURDEN seen in combination with WP:NOT. – sgeureka t•c 10:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your meaning is obscure. Use English please. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Copy-pasted from the relevant policies: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. [...] If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." In other words, it's the job of those wanting to keep the article to prove that the article can be more than plot. – sgeureka t•c 10:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN is not applicable since the facts presented for this topic are not in dispute. See below. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And what's your reply about the WP:NOT part? And who, do you think, is responsible for making sure an article can be and is written per PLOT? I rest my case. – sgeureka t•c 11:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no case to answer. WP:NOT contends that an article should not solely be plot.  It is therefore not grounds to delete but instead an exhortation to add non-plot material.  This is disputed but no matter - the sources I have found provide the non-plot material that you wish to see.  For example, one source explains that the Lying Bastard, by its title, is an example of the "richly humorous aspects of Niven's imagination".  Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mind, all the above is pretty irrelevant. No amount of "improvement" can change the fact that this ship isn't notable outside the series. Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, sources have been added, but they are not substantial or independent of the subject, as required by WP:N. Nor do they address the real-world impact of this particular element of a fictional story.  Would not object to a merge or redirect to Known Space or Ringworld.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete. Sources which exist are not independent of the subject and this is non-negotiable. WP:BURDEN makes it clear that it is for those supporting the inclusion of an article or topic to provide sources, not for those opposing it to show that there are none. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN is being misused here, since that relates to the verification of controversial facts. In any case, it is irrelevant, since we have several primary sources which may be used to verify the plot per WP:RS and I have now identified two other substantial and independent sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - No notability even attempted to be established. Is essentially trivia and written in an in-universe fiction style instead of a why anyone in the real world should care style. Thus it's something an encyclopedia in the Ringworld universe might have, but no indication that a real world encyclopedia has any reason to mention it in a separate article. Any salvageable content could be placd in an appropriate article, but I don't even know what would be salvageable. DreamGuy (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We obviously wouldn't be here if there weren't people in the real world who cared about this. But since this is unclear to you, I have added some material which shows the interest that several artists and designers have in this vehicle.  All these creations, like the original work of art, exist in the real world and so, like most best-selling fiction, are a valid topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. This looked like a delete at first, but after looking at the sources and the article, this seems to establish appropriate notability. Though I see the usual anti-fiction people disagree. I do say week since it's seems a rather minor element. This is all coming from a deletionist. Wizardman  23:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Colonel Warden has done a nice job sourcing the article.  I came to close the discussion, but I realize that I believe the article should be kept.  Malinaccier (talk) 01:11, 20 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.