Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacrifice of Thunder Child


 * 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 no consensus to delete but merge a solid option. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sacrifice of Thunder Child
Well now, boys and girls, I'm not quite sure why this article should be deleted. The best reason I can think of is that this article is a piece of fancruft redundant to the well-written thoughtful article HMS Thunder Child. If anyone wants more information on the Thunder Child, they only have to download the novel from Project Gutenberg. Please give me your considered opinions. --die Baumfabrik 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been around since Mid-2005 and refers to part of a notable article. If you're not sure why it should be deleted, why did you nominate it? Alphachimp   talk  02:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Advisory nominations are permitted. Herostratus 22:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The title appears nowhere in The War of the Worlds, so it's either fancruft or original research, take your pick. In addition, it forks material that by rights should appear in the War of the Worlds (novel) article. Merge at the least. Slac speak up! 02:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I nominated it for deletion because I thought it was a poorly-written article with an unnecessary level of detail about one aspect of a classic novel: I would classify that as cruft. Everything encyclopaedic about the ship is already contained in HMS Thunder Child and I can't imagine anyone searching explicitly for the phrase 'sacrifice of thunder child'. Just because the article has has passed some threshold of longevity doesn't necessarily mean that it should stay. --die Baumfabrik 02:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete merging anything worthwhile to HMS Thunder Child.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  02:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * AfD is a discussion, not a vote &mdash; do you have any reasons behind your recommendation? ➥the Epopt 05:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; all information in the article is sourced from the novel; the article is no more original research than any other article about a novel, or for that matter, a movie or a game. "An unnecessary level of detail"?  Since when is that a fault?  That the article is something that the nominator "would classify ... as cruft"?  The nominator's personal opinion is not a valid criterion for deletion.  A nomination that begins with the admission that the nominator himself is "not quite sure why this article should be deleted" needs to be speedy kept to give the nominator a chance to review the deletion criteria and find a way to work within policy. ➥the Epopt 05:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The title of the article is original research; the article itself is not about a novel, movie or game. What lacuna does the article HMS Thunderchild have that necessitates this article? Forking is only acceptable when the main article has an unacceptable level of detail; there is nothing of the sort in War of The Worlds (novel). The event has no notability outside of the context of the book - why then is the article about it outside of the article on the book? As far as personal opinions go, in every case they determine what is deleted and what is kept. And the nominator has explained their reasons on this page. Slac speak up! 09:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep a very well known novel can have articles on details in the plot such as this, it is about the battle not just the ship --Astrokey 44 10:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant. We only need one article on Thunder Child, and this is the logical one to get rid of because for all that it is sourced from the book, it is essentially a plot summary of one part of the book with apparently novel inferences.  We don't do plot summaries.  The level of detail is excessive for a fictional plot device form one book.  I am a huge SF fan, I love the books of Wells, but this level of details is just too much. I removed the cover image of the Wayne album (of which I am also a huge fan) since fair use does not allow it to be used other than in the article on the album itself. Farewell, Thunder Child... Just zis Guy you know? 10:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, well the nominator may not be sure why this should be deleted... but I am: as redundancy that contains an element of originial research per "although the action is never given a name in Wells's own text". Any information verifiable from the book about the actual battle could be merged by interested parties to the already existing HMS Thunderchild article.  It is a short enough article that it could easily hold the content of Sacrifice of Thunder Child (minus the title coined by the article originator of course).--Isotope23 13:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per die Baumfabrik. -- Kjkolb 13:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to HMS Thunder Child as unnecessary duplicate or fork. --MCB 20:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with HMS Thunder Child, also, don't nominate things if you don't know why you should. --PresN 21:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Yes, a plot synopsis created by reading a book is original research.  To not be original research, it needs to be based on some previously published reliable source's description of the book.  GRBerry 15:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is not original research. If it were, the vast majority of Wikipedia's articles on film and literature would need to be deleted. ➥the Epopt 21:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to HMS Thunder Child, a single article with all the content serves us better than two separates ones. --Stormie 05:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with HMS Thunder Child, as duplication should be avoided, but please keep WOW subjects in Wikipedia Expatkiwi 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I enjoyed reading this article so I'd selfishly like to keep it around :) Plot summaries are not original research. Haukur 16:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect per MCB. --ZsinjTalk 19:28, 16 July 2006 (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.