Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spacecraft in the Honorverse


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Spacecraft in the Honorverse

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Huge, unsourced, infodump of trivia about fictional spaceships. Tagged for issues over a year ago and issues unaddressed. Has grown by about 8kb, but mostly it's just deck chairs. There are pretty much no sources anywhere in this franchise so there is little reason to expect sources to emerge. Appears to be primarily a synthesis from the primary sources. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: went to Wikia; . Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Describes an important concept and important characters in a particularly notable series of books. It would be impossible to gain an adequate understanding of the series without this content existing. Highly useful. Article has tremendous potential. Wikipedia is a meta-fansite with unlimited space. WP:PRESERVE. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So you meant to say "keep", no? Debresser (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * see: sarcasm Jack Merridew 13:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Debresser (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Trivial, unreferenced - vulnerable to OR. Ryan 4314  (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unreferenced trivia, plot summary and OR. Generally, the nuances between ship classes/sizes aren't important to understanding these books; it's sufficient to know they're big ships, and sometimes the protagonist overcomes tough odds to beat a bigger ship. These details are superfluous -- and unreferenced, some of it synthesis, on top of that. --EEMIV (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Since it can be sourced to the original fiction, it isn't OR. It's not about the plot, though it shows up as background, as it should. The individual ships are not notable, so a combination article on them is appropriate. Personally, I couldn't care less about this series, which I have never read and never intend to read, but I see this as an attack on all articles on elements of fiction. It may succeed, because typically only those who care about the particular fiction pay much attention to the AfDs, while the reason for opposing is general. I'm not alleging bad faith--the motives of the nom is explicit in multiple comments: he wants decreased coverage of fiction in Wikipedia. An honest opinion, no matter how bad it would be for Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all-for appropriate levels of coverage of all types of fiction. However, this sort of stuff is plot-regurgitation motivated by mere fan enthusiasm. There do not appear to be sources establishing the notability of the books themselves! Just because something is important to someone does not make it important. Genuine notability — of the significant depth of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources kind — is our approximation of a test for 'Importance'. I believe that this project should focus on the important stuff, and that weeding-out the junk is essential to the core goals of this project. I'm all for coverage of fiction in depth if serious people have stood up and taken serious note. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack, how on earth can you know what motivates it? Fan enthusiasm has made a lot of good Wikipedia articles, on every from sports to pornography. DGG (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose I can't truly know the motivation of others. It does seem to me that many are prattling on about whatever franchise has ensnared them as a means to vicariously participate in the story. This sort of effort is more appropriate for fansite than an encyclopædia. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the fictional spacecraft that are important elements in these various sci fi novels are already mentioned in the plot summaries in the articles on the books themselves. No independent, reliable sources discuss this alleged topic at all, not only making this original research, but failing verifiability and our sourcing policies. It is only a matter of fan trivia interest that "Runabouts are small civilian pleasure ships which are the Honorverse equivalent of today's sailing yachts and sport ships". Please, let's not help wikipedia continue its descent into being a fansite, lets strongly apply the rather low inclusion threshold, and let's remember we must write from and for the perspective of our world, not honor harringtons (or whatever the fictional last name is.)Bali ultimate (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a perfectly valid list, about a topic of importance within a fictional series.  D r e a m Focus  11:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per DGG. Ikip (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Question -- I understand these novels are modeled after the Horatio Hornblower novels. We have articles on some of the individual fictional ships Horatio Hornblower served on. Perhaps those advocating deletion of this article can explain why the fictional ships in this series of novels are less worthy of coverage here than the fictional ships Horatio Hornblower served on? Geo Swan (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A few of those are real ships with appropriate coverage. Most of the ships do not have any such article. Three of them are entirely fictional, and appears to be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF; I've redirected them to the single works in which they appear. --EEMIV (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You apparently redirected them without merging the information they had. It was reverted, but I would not oppose a proper merge for some individual ship articles there or here into either the specific novel, when possible, or into articles like this. DGG (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is significant content, I will revert, and we continue the discussion on the talk pages of the articles concerned. As it conveniently happens, there are good secondary sources about that universe also--probably better ones, as its quite popular among academics. Geo, it's risky to raise something like this at an afd, because it tends to produce this sort of response: let's get rid of any thing else that might happen to help the other side of the argument. The OTHER STUFF people allege in these discussions is often good stuff--the article nominated for deletion is quite reasonably likely to be the weakest of the lot, and then the whole thing may be lost in senseless deletion. DGG (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just looked at HMS Lydia and it seems to have an independent source. This seems reasonable given that Forester's not Weber. And I agree with DGG that more and better sources are likely to exist for the Lydia. This is, in fact, an excellent example of the difference; only one fictional realm is genuinely notable and warrants more than basic coverage. Weber may have looted prior art for grist, but that didn't net him any notability. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with DGG's reasoning.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Seems like if this was a notable subject, there would be some coverage in secondary sources. AniMate  talk  22:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The arguments for delete, above, seem to be variations on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. People do write serious works on material like this.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Pretty much per nom.  The subject fails WP:N, just because its an article in a fictional universe doesn't mean it gets a free bypass from our notability guidelines.  It also fails WP:WAF as its from an entirely in-universe perspective.  This has been tagged for help for over a year and especially with the close scruitny that AfD gives, if this article hasn't gotten help now than its either impossible to help or nobodys willing to fix it. There are still no reliable sources for verification, let alone an assertion of notability.  I don't see any arguments of the form IDONTLIKEIT here. Nobody is saying they don't like the material; its that it shouldn't be presented without reasonable sources in an encyclopedia that has discriminate inclusion guidelines and a policy of verifiability.  Them  From  Space  04:38, 30 April 2009 (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.