Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uplift Universe


 * 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. The keep argument is that while significant de-crufting may be needed, there are sufficient sources about this fictional universe to allow for an article about it rather than just a section within an article about the series. Sources added to the article during the discussion period indicate that this argument is plausible, and it is the view of a strong majority of the participants. RL0919 (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Uplift Universe

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The fictional world of a book series. Per WP:NOTPLOT, part of the policy WP:NOT, articles must not be "summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats creative works (...) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." This article fails this policy because it consists only of plot summary. Moreover, it fails WP:GNG, because if there's anything notable here, it's the books (which already have articles), and not their fictional universe. The article cites no sources that would suggest any notability for these fictional species, etc.  Sandstein   21:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.   Sandstein   21:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, assuming the RPG, themes etc are sourcable. If not a merge to Brin or to Uplift (science fiction) might be applicable. Not seeing WP:NOTPLOT as applicable, though some plotty cruft could probably be trimmed. Artw (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Google Scholar quickly finds, , , as well as a bunch of Brin's own scholarly writings. There are a number of mentions in various Sci Fi encyclopedias as well under this name. Google News finds as well. With notability established, the lack of these sources in the article can be addressed through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, for same reasons.DavidHobby (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To the extent these sources confer notability, they do so for the book series, not for the fictional universe inside the book series. And irrespective of notability, failing WP:NOT is an independent reason for deletion. I'd be happy if somebody were to use these sources to write a competent article about the book series, including its themes, but what we have here is not an encyclopedia article, but fancruft better suited to fan wikis. WP:TNT applies.  Sandstein   09:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with User:Sandstein; I think the book series may be notable but the current article is 99% plot summary fancruft, and a bit about the publication history. A bit could be rescued, but overall, WP:TNT seems sadly applicable. Btw, Sandstein, perhaps you could consider commenting in some ongoing IMHO identical discussions I recently started? See Articles for deletion/Heechee and Articles for deletion/Xanth... I think they all concern articles that share the same problems. Also, uplift (science fiction) looks ripe for an AfD of its own, sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus, thanks, but I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment in AfDs to which I have been directed in the expectation that I would express a certain opinion (WP:CANVASS).  Sandstein   13:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens Can you provide a working link for the pdf at 3? It seems to have been temporary and already broken. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Still works for me. The paper is "Design and Architecture: Third Generation Conservation, Post-Immersion and Beyond" by Jon Coe from "FUTURE OF ZOOS SYMPOSIUM, 10-11 February 2012, Canisius College, Buffalo, NY". The relevant quotes from it include: "Another science fiction concept, explored in David Brin’s “Uplift” book series involves human genetic engineering of other species to optimise their ability to prosper along with humans. Such developments could lead to another version of the “unzoo” (safe wildlife?) as will as the third generation conservation approach which follows." and concludes with "Exotic animal collections will greatly decline, replaced by virtual safari experiences and perhaps chimerical hybrid species. Eventually even uplifted families of bonobos or dolphins may become your friends and neighbors."  Of note, the citation is not to any individual of Brin's books, but to "Brin, D., 1980, Uplift Universe Series, Bantam Books inc. NY" which is I presume why the Google Scholar search tagged it. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete and redirect per WP:TNT and arguments above. Most of the article is unreferenced fancruft, what little remains could be used to expand this, but nobody has volunteered and as such a redirect and perhaps a slight merge to David_Brin could be considered as well. I'll also note that I loved the series when I was younger, and I'll add this to my 'to research and rewrite' list in the future, but I won't bother rewriting this fancruft. Any cleanup needs to start with removal of 99% of content, hence my preference for soft deletion via redirecting for now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge .0001% to David_Brin. There is some non-universe sourcing, but nothing to indicate it warrants a standalone article or is independently notable. Could easily be covered within his article as the vast majority of the existing material is unsuitable and should be removed. Star   Mississippi  18:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC) I struck my vote. There have been a lot of changes since I made it and without time to assess them, I no longer feel comfortable taking a position. So simply neutral   Star   Mississippi  14:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever the outcome here, the notability of the entire series is beyond a doubt, having won Hugo and Nebula awards multiple times. The Universe the series is based in is well-developed, and a lot of what is in there could at least be verified. I have a copy of Contacting Aliens, which gives a decent dive into the history, the languages, the purposes of the great institutes, and short descriptions for far more species than are currently listed. (I also just finally found the GURPS maual at a decent price and have ordered it) I feel like the fictional universe is notable as the core element of six big fat novels and four other ancillary publications, but of course my feelings as a huge fan of the series don't count without sources to back them up. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ok, I've just done some research and found *A LOT* of referencing to the uplift universe and its various concepts in Google Scholar, and I have have added in an extra 6 references (and there is more than that). I will note here that Brin coined the term uplift, and his work (and the term "uplift") is now referenced by both science writers, animal rights people, and philsophers.The RS I've added is mainly just GS, there would be more in Ebsco, Proquest and Gale if anyone else wants to look there and add them in. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources show that there's a basis for an article about the book series and its themes. But adding them to the article does not change that the article is still entirely plot summary as prohibited by WP:NOT. An actual encyclopedia article would address how the fictional concept of uplift relates to the real world (in terms of technology, cultural influence, reception by critics and scientists, etc.), not just regurgitate what's in the books.  Sandstein   07:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been adding text and information about the themes, with the relevant supporting RS which validates the article. If there is too much fancruft vs valid discussion of the themes of the book by sources (which I agree there probably is) the offending fancruft stuff can be taken out. But certainly, if you are suggesting it, that's not a basis for deleting the whole article which is otherwise referenced and valid. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Excess plot is fixable by normal editing, and thus not a reason for deletion. As an administrator,  you should know this and do better, rather that continue making nominations which undermine editor confidence in your ability to appropriately apply deletion policy. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If the entire article is plot summary, the fix is deleting the article, There is no „normal editing“ that can remedy this problem.  Sandstein   08:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I will point that that the now-closed discussions I linked above ended up in keep, suggesting the (temporary?) consensus is against you (and me). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, except - as per Jclemens's comments, and my additions, and others, the entire article is not plot summary, so there are no grounds for TNT here. I don't really understand why you keep pushing for that. It would be great if you could please tag the sections you see as problematical, and they can be dealt with, and we can all work together to improve the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Deathlibrarian Everything outside 'major themes' needs a ~90% reduction in fancruft density. If you think you can rescue this, godspeed; I'd prefer to start from scratch, although softdeletion can be totally fine without the need for AfD (it just makes DYKing before GA stage  more difficult, but that's a minor concern). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * you keep saying that, but it simply not true in any way; Deathlibrarian's additions here prove you wrong: Even if they're not sufficient, they demonstrate that it's entirely possible to go from 100% PLOT to something else without using admin tools. Please explain what you really meant, retract that ridiculous statement, or exit deletion processes until you become adequately familiar with Wikipedia policies. Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * After the improvements by Deathlibrarian, the article is now 90% plot instead of 100% plot, which I guess is progress, but overall the article still looks at the topic from an in-universe point of view instead of from an out-of-universe point of view, like a proper article should (WP:WAF). If one looks at the headings - 1 Setting (1.1Technology 1.2Social behavior 1.3Languages 1.4Planets), 2Alien species and humans (2.1EarthClan 2.1.1Humans 2.1.2Neo-Chimpanzees 2.1.3Neo-Dolphins 2.1.4Neo-Gorillas 2.1.5Kiqui 2.2Other species 2.2.1The Glaver 2.2.2The Jophur) 3Major themes, 4Plot Outline - there is only one section with an out-of-universe point of view (the 10% usable content I mentioned): the "Major themes" section. That section could become the core of a proper article about the book series, but the rest still needs to be discarded or moved to a fan wiki.  Sandstein   07:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet... deletion of plot material and addition of sourced commentary continues, all without admin tools. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:HEYMAN. I understand the nomination, based on this version, and anything beyond the briefest summaries sourced just to the books should be removed, but there's a seed of material that can be retained now, so the rest can be fixed by editing. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok, I've added a bit more content to the themes section, with some extra analysis of his work, and a few more references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed the long lists of things here (both the list of languages and the list of planets). Judging from the discussions here, these things seemed to bother people the most, and do appear to be fannish. They were just long lists, and were not referenced. I replaced the languages list with a section on language, with references discussing it. Added another 5 references, trying to reduce the amount of unreferenced text in the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep lots of secondary sources out there, a few of which have been added recently by Deathlibrarian. Since these were published pre-internet I'm sure there are lots more sources that never made it online too. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * keep I'm ow reasonably convinced this is a workable article. It has some real issues as identified by the nominator but I feel these can be overcome by editing as opposed to deletion. I also feel that the distinction between calling it "Uplift Universe" as opposed to "Uplift Series" is largely academic and can be discussed on the talk page as the article progresses. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2022 (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.