Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Municipal Darwinism


 * 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 redirect to Mortal Engines Quartet. The content of the article can be found in the page history behind the redirect if a content merge is desired. Deryck C. 12:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Municipal Darwinism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Plot element from a series of novels, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the author of the fictional work described. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF). To the small extent the article attempts out-of-universe analysis of the topic, that analysis is original research.  Sandstein  19:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep -- Concept seems notable by the significant coverage of it in scholarly articles, such as:
 * There seems to be also be some traction for the term in general use, for example this editorial compares Melbourne's metropolitan sprawl with "Municipal Darwinism". Although the Wikipedia article should be edited to eliminate the in-universe perspective, the concept is notable enough to pass WP:GNG criteria. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be also be some traction for the term in general use, for example this editorial compares Melbourne's metropolitan sprawl with "Municipal Darwinism". Although the Wikipedia article should be edited to eliminate the in-universe perspective, the concept is notable enough to pass WP:GNG criteria. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be also be some traction for the term in general use, for example this editorial compares Melbourne's metropolitan sprawl with "Municipal Darwinism". Although the Wikipedia article should be edited to eliminate the in-universe perspective, the concept is notable enough to pass WP:GNG criteria. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be also be some traction for the term in general use, for example this editorial compares Melbourne's metropolitan sprawl with "Municipal Darwinism". Although the Wikipedia article should be edited to eliminate the in-universe perspective, the concept is notable enough to pass WP:GNG criteria. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * With due respect for digging up said sources, their actual direct coverage of this subject is at best worthy of a referenced paragraph in a parent article, examining how the theme of cities eating each other is a metaphor for capitalism as a whole. They are not in-depth treatments of the subject, which the article presently defines as basically the whole floating cities concept. The source referring to Melbourne is an editorial and is at best a primary source for the assertion that the term is gaining traction (no pun intended). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Chris, Wikipedia has no limits on the minimum size of an article other than a suggestion that <1kb-size articles be considered for merging. Size isn't reason for deletion. In this AFD discussion, though, the nominator's rationale for deletion was lack of notability per WP:GNG. The references from independent reliable sources clearly dispute this. (And it required very little 'digging' to find these, so I expect there are more out there if we actually did some digging.) The sources show that the term and the concept of "Municipal Darwinism" is notable among scholars -- and they expand upon it beyond its relation to the novels. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say about the Paul James editorial -- a secondary source. (And, yes, you caught me -- I intentionally used with the word traction.) — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What I am saying is that these sources are basically trivial. Three of them devote no more than two paragraphs to the subject of this article (and only a small subset of the current article contents at that), and the fourth is really an examination of the wider themes in the series which so happens to derive its name from the nation-states concept. Editorial discretion suggests that this probably makes the subject important enough to take the time to describe in a parent article, but as far as standalone notability goes that's meagre pickings. My point about the editorial was that you asserted "There seems to be also be some traction for the term in general use": however, there is no secondary source making that analysis, but only an example of such (which can be used only to verify its own existence). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see your confusion then. You have confused an AFD discussion with article creation. Your point about the editorial is an erroneous conflation of the source (a reliable secondary source) with my opinion about that source (which, of course, by nature is primary and original). But this is an AFD discussion -- an open discussion for the exchange of ideas where we provide opinion -- we are not writing actual sentences in the article here. My point that the term is used to define and discuss real world conditions outside reviews of the fiction series remains valid -- clearly demonstrated by the editorial and the Modernist Cultures article. Therefore, an article on this topic should stand-alone outside the book article. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't confused anything, and I'll thank you not to patronise me. You asserted that "There seems to be also be some traction for the term in general use", which is a claim of notability. I pointed out that there is no actual evidence for this in terms of secondary sources making said claim, merely an example of such from a newspaper. This is no different to someone arguing that an actor is famous because some newspaper happened to name-drop him in some unrelated story. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Chris, I apologize that you feel patronized. You still seem to miss my point. That the editorial and the "Modernist Cultures" article are "unrelated", as you say, to a simple discussion or review of Reeve's novels is exactly my point. Currel and James use the term as the basis for their entire theses -- first explaining it within Reeve's work and then expanding upon it into real world context. That is far more than dropping a name. — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The plural of anecdote is not data. If a term really has entered the popular lexicon then we should be able to identify a reliable source which says so: discrete cases of writers using said term is insufficient to establish that, especially where the majority of such references are trivial. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "especially where the majority of such references are trivial."
 * Trivial references do not dilute the existence of substantial references. Otherwise when will you be deleting Pokemon? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But nor do they do anything to support them. The one in-depth source does not state that the subject has entered the popular lexicon, nor even that the subject matter is notable outside of the series of books it appears in. It is unwise to extrapolate that position from a handful of additional trivial mentions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The first cite noted here is a 12 page article in an academic journal specifically on children's literature, and not only describing the works and topic under discussion here but going so far as to cite the work's name in the article's title. Just what would you regard as WP:RS? For Dieselpunk you deleted an article with over 60 citations because you claimed you didn't believe any of them were up to your standards.
 * Yet at User_talk:Andy_Dingley you describe Pokemon and articles like List of Pokémon characters as "probably the most high-profile case of the community cracking down on excessive fancruft." with the explanation that "some fictional subjects is(sic) more notable than others". When asked why the (in-universe sourced) Reaver (Firefly) isn't at AfD, and whether this is just because Firefly gets more angry fanboys, your eventual response was "less broadly popular subjects are easier to police [...] we should endeavour to do so". So what do you think makes for an article worth keeping on a fictional topic? Popularity alone?  Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's curious that you'd bring up Dieselpunk (an article whose deletion has been repeatedly upheld) as a counterexample here, because paucity of non-trivial sources was the problem there as well. The Children's Literature in Education source was the "examination of wider themes" that I referred to; this is the best of the presented sources, and the only non-trivial one. The subject could still be adequately treated in a paragraph or two of the parent article using these sources. My comment regarding excessively popular articles which would otherwise likely be uncontroversially deleted referred to the amount of drama and acrimony generated by taking them to AfD (hence why only the most thick-skinned editors bother) rather than some expression of normative correctness in this situation. I certainly don't agree that these articles should be retained on popularity alone, but nor am I obliged to AfD them myself simply to satisfy another editor's demands for consistent treatment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice straw man argument there with Children's Literature in Education. Can you please explain the policy you're implying where a journal source is only WP:RS if it's from a journal that's also WP:Notable, and shown to be notable because(sic) it has a wiki article on it.
 * The point about Municipal Darwinism, and also Traction Cities, is that they both have sourceable existence outside of the Mortal Engines books. If this was covered in Mortal Engines Quartet (which would be an enormous article, if it had to cover a series of half-a-dozen books with only one permissible article), then you'd be right to remove such content as WP:UNDUE. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Straw man? Calm down. It's not my fault if we don't (yet) have an article on the journal; I've already said that it's the best of the current sources, and RS says that so long as a journal is indexed we're fine to use it.
 * As for where this should be covered, Mortal Engines Quartet is precisely the right place for it. That article, which presently consists entirely of plot material, trivia and speculation of spin-offs, should instead discuss the history of the series, sales and popular impact, one part of which would be the recognition in a peer-reviewed journal of the predatory cities concept. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per CactusWriter. Sources found appear to meet the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All but one of those references are trivial mentions. This isn't a head count. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Philip Reeve. This is an unsourced neologism used in fictional work by a single author, without larger applicability. An "in-universe bit," if you will.. Note that in the event of deletion, redirection, or merger as a close that the link for this subject needs to be stricken from the Philip Reeve template showing at the bottom of the piece. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity   Talk Face-smile.svg Contribs 09:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, or Merge to Mortal Engines Quartet. I'm not convinced this subject has achieved real-world notability; it seems more like in-universe trivia. I wouldn't object to a summary being included in the main article on the series, however. Robofish (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge to Mortal Engines Quartet - there is no evidence that this has any significant coverage outside of the series. The sources provided do not establish anything beyond trivial coverage of the concept; nothing that could not be briefly covered in Mortan Engines Quartet. Without evidence that this is notable topic in the real world, I can see no scope for keeping the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge to Mortal Engines Quartet. No coverage outside of the narrow in-universe discussion. Not enough cultural resonance as a concept for an encyclopedia page. BusterD (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2012 (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.