Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organlegging (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   Keep per WP:SNOW, as consensus points to keeping but rewriting the article (non-admin closure). Ecoleetage (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This fictional topic 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) 17:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Organ theft. I think that article would be improved by including a paragraph or two on organ theft in fiction. I don't think there's any merit to this as a standalone article. Reyk  YO!  20:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a drive-by, cookie-cutter nomination which fails the AFD process of WP:BEFORE and does not address the previous AFD. I had little difficulty finding and adding a citation to a reliable source and so doubt that the nominator has made the slightest effort to research this notable topic which relates to an important subject raised by a major author. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that I don't spend time working on every single article I nominate is not a reason to keep it. It is up to editors interested in the topic to establish notability, not myself. If you have sources that assert notability through the inclusion of real world information, add them to the article. Otherwise, I suggest that you don't comment if you find my nominations to be annoying. TTN (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read and follow the policy laid out in WP:BEFORE as you keep violating it. This includes:
 * Read the article to properly understand its topic...
 * Tag the article with any noted problems...
 * Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted....
 * Read the article's talk page ... if there was a previous nomination ...
 * When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist.
 * Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape...
 * Colonel Warden (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not policy; it is simply a suggestion of what should be done before starting an AfD. I don't see the need to tag for problems in most cases, as they cannot be improved in most cases, people would get on my case about not utilizing AfDs if I only used redirects for bad articles (a good catch-22), and as they cannot be improved, they would not benefit much from a deep search for sources. TTN (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken - the improvements recommended by WP:BEFORE can be made in most cases. At the very least, a merger is usually preferable to deletion since it preserves the contribution history per WP:GFDL, preserves the edit history which may be helpful to future editors, preserves the article name which may be a useful search term and preserves such elements of the content and references which may be kept.  Your refusal to consider these reasonable options on the grounds that it "is not policy" seems to be gaming the system.  Note that WP:NOTABILITY is not policy either - see WP:CHERRY. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge as per Reyk. Edward321 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Changing !vote based on Mgm, Casliber's comments. Edward321 (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Too large for a merge. The only problem is referencing and the nominator did not show the lack of references cannot be solved by editing. - Mgm|(talk) 00:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Too big for a merge, and could be easily larger with analysis of material in some SF commentray or other. notable plot element in notable novel series. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite -- most of this article is indeed written just as an article would be for  real-world crime; I can quite understand why it might have been nominated, but editing will deal adequately with it. DGG (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Term seems notable enough, would prefer if the article was more about the term and not just repeating information from the novels. Ryan 4314   (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Needs work done to it, but that's not what AfD is for. Also per DGG. &mdash; neuro(talk) 09:13, 14 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.