Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planets of the Hainish Cycle


 * 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. I will have to go with delete, based on the sources. Another possibility would be to merge, let me know if you need to access the content. Tone 09:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Planets of the Hainish Cycle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In-universe, non-notable, plot-only minutia better suited to a fan wiki. TTN (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - secondary sources satisfy WP:GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Which sources presently in the article provide significant coverage of the topic? Absolutely none of them are used to provide real world information, which is necessary to fulfill WP:PLOT. TTN (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Each of the secondary sources goes beyond PLOT retelling; providing critical commentary on the fictional elements is quite sufficient "real world information" per policy. As for what is currently in the article, AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There appear to be three non-primary sources in the article. What commentary do they provide? You can't just claim they do when there's absolutely no proof in your response or the article. I'm sure they are fine sources for the author's works in general, but how do they help this article in particular? TTN (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at the sources, and they discuss the planets the article is about. That suffices, per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What, exactly? “Discuss” is such an open term in these discussions. It can be anything from a name drop, mentioning the locations simply in a retelling of the plot, or enough actual discussion on the individual planets to merit an article. TTN (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:ALLPLOT, WP:INUNIVERSE indiscriminate list with a heavy amount of original research.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Newimpartials reasoning and responses. Artw (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. It usefully collects all of the planets mentioned.  A lot of work to check them otherwise.  That. surely, is what an encyclopedia is for.--GwydionM (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Random collection of mostly unreferenced WP:PLOT elements that are never discussed in in-depth in non-fiction works. The keep voters claim 'there are good sources' but refuse to discuss them in detail or just vote 'per previous keep argument'. Closing admin should keep in mind AfD=/=vote. This kind of fancruft belongs on wikia, ex. https://hippie.wikia.org/wiki/Planets_of_the_Hainish_Cycle --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to Hainish Cycle. Goustien (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Entirely in-universe plot summary using almost entirely primary sources. Even the couple of non-primary sources being used here are insufficient to pass the WP:GNG for different reasons - one appears to just be part of a fansite, the others, while mentioning a couple of planets as part of their summaries do not discuss the set in any sort of depth.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:PLOT. It's really difficult to perform a WP:GNG analysis on this, none of the keep !votes are helpful in explaining why secondary sources have discussed these enough to create a full article on them, but most of the citations are from the author talking about the universe she created. I have absolutely no idea how this can be considered encyclopaedic, and is probably best moved to an entirely different wiki. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:19, 18 November 2019 (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.