Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shrike (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 Come back later. Of course, if the article is still stand-alone and failing WP:N after a reasonable time, then a further AfD would be reasonable. At present, though, this appears to be more of an editorial issue. And yes, G4 doesn't apply because it's never been deleted. It might actually be worth making that clearer at WP:CSD, since many editors seem to conflate deletion and redirection. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Shrike
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fictional character appearing in a cycle of novels. The previous deletion discussion was closed as redirect, and this redirect has now been undone. The article is almost entirely plot summary (WP:PLOT), and the character as such does not appear notable (WP:V) because it has not as such received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The one NYT review cited only briefly touches upon this character. Additional possible sources are mentioned on the article talk page, but as these are offline, I have no way of ascertaining to which depth, if any, they address the character. If we want to have articles about fictional characters, we need to be able to say substantially more about them than merely regurgitating the plot as concerns them.  Sandstein  06:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete hastily. Would WP:G4 not apply in this case? — JmaJeremy  talk contribs  06:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC) (!vote withdrawn)
 * No, because it was never deleted before. Merge is a form of keep. Jehochman Talk 16:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 *  Delete Merge with redirect per previous consensus. Personally I think the Shrike is a great literary creation, but it simply doesn't have the necessary coverage to warrant a separate article. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be, in which case, please take it upon yourself to merge the content into the Hyperion Cantos article. Last time we went through this the result was to merge, but nobody ever bothered to do the work, and this content was lost.  I have been trying to clean up the content in preparation for merging (no point in merging crap), or perhaps keeping a separate article if there is enough referenced material.  This haste to delete is seriously misguided.  If half the effort of the deletionists were put into improving the content and finding the right place for it, the matter would have been resolved by now.  Jehochman Talk 16:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sombody else's problem, eh? Fair enough, I'll make a userspace copy of the current page and if this get's closed as D&R, I'll merge the content. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, cut/paste copying is not correct. Please see WP:CUTPASTE and WP:MAD which explain this. Warden (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, good point, thanks for the reminder. In which case, changing !vote to Merge and redirect, above. I'm still happy to merge the content if no-one else can be bothered. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the previous consensus was what, two editors. That's not exactly a consensus. Jehochman Talk 17:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. The content here is harmless, and there are sources, though it may take some time to track them down.  The fiction was written circa 1990, pre-WWW, so the sources are mostly offline.  The content is reasonably accurate and could be a part of Hyperion Cantos if not a separate article. Jehochman Talk 16:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Harmless" is not the relevant inclusion criterion; "notable" is. Coverage of fictional topics should be appropriately balanced, see WP:WAF, and this is just overly detailed plot summary. As such, it is not useful in the main article at this level of detail, and it is also not useful as part of a separate article unless the topic is notable enough to warrant such an article, which nobody here seems to argue it is.  Sandstein   20:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am actively trying to fix it, but you seem to be utterly deaf. You're trying to delete the page while I'm working on it.  You couldn't just wait a bit for me to finish, eh.  It's that important to delete this page immediately?  Jehochman Talk 20:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as soon as you go live with a page in mainspace, it does have to meet our inclusion requirements. But you'll have all the time in the world to finish it if this discussion concludes that the topic is notable enough for inclusion. And you have the seven days in which this AfD runs to prove that it is (now) notable, which shouldn't be difficult if you do have adequate sources to draw on as a basis of your improvement work.  Sandstein   21:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge: If this is notable then you have had time to establish this with sources in the article and not just on the talk page, and your predecessors in the original AfD debate had time to do so as well. The content here is harmless is not a policy I am aware of. The article having been deleted and redirected once before, the onus is on its supporters to improve it in userspace before unleashing it on Wikipedia again, it is not permitted to just undo the redirect and carry on as if nothing happened. Richard75 (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete what somebody else is working on before they have a chance to get to the references isn't policy either. If somebody says they are working to improve an article, will considering merging if appropriate, and you nevertheless badger them incessantly in a quest to delete the thing they are working on, you are very uncivil. This goes for Sandstein too, who should have enough clue not to have done what he did. Jehochman Talk 17:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Once an article has entered mainspace, it must meet all the normal requirements for an article, including inline citations and reliable sources that establish its notability. If you want to work on it for a wihle first, you should move the article to your userspace and put back the redirect that was decided upon at the previous AfD discussion. On the other hand, things seem to be getting a little argumentative here...we shouldn't always quibble over policies. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and, most importantly WP:Ignore all rules. —  18:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The main detriment I see in putting this in my userspace (I do have a copy there by the way) is that people won't find it. A fair number of people go online and search for The Shrike, as I did, and look for the Wikipedia page to learn more about this character.  My hope is that people would find the page and want to get involved improving it.  Moving to my userspace prevents that from happening. As I said above, this article is about a fictional character, not a BLP, so there is practically no harm whatsoever if any of the info is unverified. Jehochman Talk 19:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that strong policies for sourcing and notability just don't apply to your article? "Mostly harmless" is a Douglas Adams quote, not a WP policy. Other articles on fiction are being deleted wholesale (and deleted, making them impossible to work upon further, not just redirected) because they didn't have adequate sourcing from outside the novel itself. You had a month from the first AfD to add sources, yet it's still lacking them. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am here as a Wikipedia reader. I was reading Hyperion and wanted to know a bit more about this character, went to Google and expected to find a detailed Wikipedia page.  It wasn't there.  The Hyperion Cantos article had no content about the main character of the series, which seemed very odd, so I sought to resurrect this article.  I wasn't involved in the prior AfD, so I haven't had a month.  Didn't even know about it at the time. Jehochman Talk 13:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "I was reading Hyperion and wanted to know a bit more about this character,"
 * Then unfortunately Wikipedia has failed you - because there's nothing in this article that isn't lifted straight from the books, which you'd just read for yourself.
 * I'm happy that the Shrike is a significant character (I won't say "notable", as that's politically loaded) and that WP should wish to have an article upon it. The problem is one of our quality standards: we (for the best of reasons) don't permit WP:OR and it's currently questionable as to whether an article on a topic in fiction is permitted to be based solely on the original text, as this one is.
 * Current WP practice is that articles on fiction are allowed to exist with no other sources if it's a US title (the stated policy is ignored), but if it's a UK title, then large swathes of articles are being deleted (the same policy is being enforced). WP is clearly being inconsistent on this issue, and I see that as being driven solely by their populism and the greater number of US editors at AfDs etc. Whether we decide to keep this policy or change it, we clearly shouldn't enforce it arbitrarily and inconsistently. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In a five minute search I came up with these sources:


 * Isaac Asimov's science fiction magazine: Volume 14, Issues 4-6
 * Mind Flight: A Journey Into the Future, Tom Lombardo, Jeanne Belisle Lombardo
 * The Greenwood encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy
 * NY Times book review: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/25/books/science-fiction.html?ref=bookreviews

Most of these are dead trees, so it will take time to track them down and see what they say. If anybody here has access and can shed light on this question, that would be superb. Jehochman Talk 21:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, but as I said initially, do any of these cover the Shrike at a level of detail that would enable us to write an article about it? The NYT does not.  Sandstein   21:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is enough to create more than a stub, because I haven't gotten my hands on the dead trees yet, but I think deletion is not the right decision. The content could be merged. Jehochman Talk 02:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the above-mentioned sources: Isaac Asimov magazine certainly mentions the Shrike in an article about the books, but doesn't give it any more significant coverage than any other review; Mind Flight is self-published through Xlibris and so fails WP:RS; The Greenwood Encyclopedia covers the Shrike in passing in a plot synopsis (no depth of coverage), and the NY Times article has already been discussed. The Greenwood Encyclopedia does mention an article by Janeen Webb called The Hunting of the Shrike, which I haven't been able to find; it appeared in Foundation in 1991. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a plausible search term and therefore must not be deleted. If a consensus forms that this material should not be a separate article, then we may wish to consider remerging or replacing with a redirect to Shrike (disambiguation), but turning it into a redlink is simply inappropriate.— S Marshall  T/C 23:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur that it is a likely search term and should redirect to the related article. Richard75 (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to a section of Hyperion Cantos.I'll soon be working on revising this article, which could adapt most of the article's content, fitting it into a rather bulky but useful section.  dci  &#124;  TALK   01:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy close Any editor is allowed to undo a redirect--even an AfD enacted one--with a good faith belief that the problems can be fixed AND is making steps in that direction. This is not a BLP issue, it's one of fictional content, and there's at least four references on the talk page and the un-redirector has been making progress in that direction.  Really, this is premature.  The end result may indeed be a merge, and I don't think it would be an inappropriate outcome even if there are sufficient independent, non-trivial RS'es to support a separate article.  This should really be handled via discussion, and this is still entitiled "articles for deletion"--and no policy-based reason for deletion has been advanced, not even by the delete !voters. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, let's move this to the talk page.  dci  &#124;  TALK   05:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "no policy-based reason for deletion has been advanced" - both WP:N and WP:G4 are Wikipedia policies. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * These are both frivolous arguments. The only issue to discuss is whether the content should be a stand alone article, or a section of Hyperion Cantos.  I completely don't care which of those is the outcome. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The consensus of the previous discussion was merger but nobody did anything about it. Now that an editor is engaged in actively editing the topic, this nomination seems to be disruptive and, as it does not propose actual deletion, is inappropriate. Warden (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy close, substantially per Jclemens. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion is not elegible for speedy closure: the nomination has not been withdrawn, and other editors have recommended deletion. See WP:Speedy keep. I suggest the above editors adjust their !votes to "Keep". Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for that. JClemens and Newyorkbrad are both arbitrators.  I do assure you that it's not necessary to give them "suggestions" about Wikipedia procedure.  Their "speedy keeps" in this case should be understood as "snow keeps", and they're clearly right.  Jehochman has explained to you why G4 does not apply, and WP:N is not a reason to delete when redirection is an option (see WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE).  What JClemens and Newyorkbrad are saying is that this nomination has no prospect whatsoever of leading to a "delete" outcome.— S Marshall  T/C 09:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to argue that the article  should be deleted under G4 (or even that it's a good argument), merely that it has been advanced as a policy-based reason for deletion, in direct contradiction to the claim that "no policy-based reasons have been advanced." I'm afraid I'm not psychic, so I tend to regard a "Speedy Keep" !vote as, well, a speedy keep !vote, not a snow keep one. You're right to point out that they don't need my suggestions, though, so I've striken that. However, this article also fails the snowball test (since it wasn't closed as Keep last time), so snow keep isn't really appropriate either. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep G4 when it doesn't apply is not a policy based reason. I could equally well say this article should be deleted because there's no context, or any other irrelevant reason. Probably the content should be merged, but that's another question.  DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with Hyperion Cantos. - Frankie1969 (talk) 11:10, 17 March 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.