Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masada (Honorverse) (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.  Singu larity  07:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Masada (Honorverse)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a blatant violation of WP:NOT. No real-world context or secondary sources have been added in almost one year. A good part of the first discussion centered around the question whether the article is affected by the recent ArbCom injuntion. This injunction has now been lifted, so I'm relisting. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is one of many superfluous Honorverse articles. If I'm not mistaken, there are more articles on the Honorverse than on Harry Potter (look at the template). And there is nary an outside source on this fictional planet. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, entirely in-universe, no secondary sources, no sourced real world context or analysis. Fails WP:WAF and WP:NOT. Jfire (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete now that the injunction has been lifted. Article is almost totally in-universe with no secondary sources; WP:NOT applies. --Core desat 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the books are acceptable primary sources and WP:PLOT is pointless bureaucracy (one of the things Wikipedia is not). Do you need a secondary source to tell you what page X says? No you don't. --Pixelface (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PLOT is not pointless bureaucracy. It is a well reasoned policy, and without good reason, exception should not be made. All articles must have secondary sources, not just ones on fictional objects. Secondary sources are required to establish notability. With fictional topics, the information must be presented from the perspective of the real world. Simply indicating that a topic is fictional is not real world context. If there isn't information beyond repeating the plot then the article is not encyclopedic, and is potentially copyright infringement as it would serve to replace experiencing the fictional work. It is absolutely necessary to delete articles like this for the good of Wikipedia. Jay32183 (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per policy (WP:PLOT). If the policy needs to be changed that can be discussed at the policy talk page or at the village pump. There are more than enough precedents for this to be deleted. — BradV 15:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete one of too many articles of this ilk. --Stormbay (talk) 02:30, 27 March 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.