Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons technology 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Weapons technology in the Honorverse

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

Unreferenced plot summary for trivial elements of Honorverse universe. No indication of importance within the fictional texts, let alone the real world. Fail WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:PLOT, WP:IINFO. --EEMIV (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per comments at Articles for deletion/Honorverse concepts and terminology. PS. But I am ok with merge of weapon tech article to the technology in the Honorverse one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial listcruft/clutter at best. Move to a fan Wiki if there is one. Wikipedia isn't a place for every plot detail. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep These articles are also helpfull in understanding the real-world game Saganami Island Tactical Simulator. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I voted both keep and merge (below) because both are acceptable to me Debresser (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL != inclusion rationale. Furthermore, Wikipedia doesn't exist to provide game-guide background information, even for a real-world game. --EEMIV (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It proves real-world relevance. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

''You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of GFDL). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy. This is not an issue, however, if the merged content is not merely copied and pasted, but instead completely rewritten so that only uncopyrightable facts are transferred, not copyrightable expression.'' Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose a delete per AfD - While I see that a tremendous amount of TLC has gone into these articles the editors involved do not seem to be aware of core policies related to citing references, etc. to establish that the material in these articles is accurate in the context of this fictional universe, is not OR on Wikipedia, is notable, etc. My first thought was a reluctant support of deletion but I then saw that, other than hatting in May 2008, that there has been no effort to follow WP:DEL. These pages look like excellent candidates for alternatives to deletion. There have been no talk page discussions to encourage the editors actively involved in these articles on how to bring the articles up to WP quality. If the stuff is truly not for WP then the active editors should be able to see that for themselves once they try to follow the policies and to either employ one of the alternatives to deletion or to recommend that their own stuff be removed from WP. An AfD at this point in time feels like biting enthusiastic editors, whether they be newbies or not. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 21:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ...except that in 10 months of being marked for cleanup, the article has garnered significant expansion from two editors, but not at all addressed issues of referencing and content. Beyond that, this content is already covered in sufficient detail at the Honorverse wiki (see Category:Technology and Category:Weapons Technology). --EEMIV (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The HonorverseWiki is not Wikipedia. So that is no argument. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all content belongs at Wikipedia. See WP:IINFO, even WP:ATD. --EEMIV (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "The HonorverseWiki is not Wikipedia" sums it up perfectly. Debresser, I strongly encourage you go to Help desk and ask "What can I do to bring Weapons technology in the Honorverse and Technology in the Honorverse up to Wikipedia standards? Both are up for AfD meaning I also need to learn how to get a stay of execution." At present, they are beautiful articles but they don't stand a ghost of a chance of remaining on Wikipedia in their present form. If an admin sees that at least one editor is working actively to get an article up to WP standards then it's likely to not be deleted. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 06:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A 'beautiful article'? Please; see: Borobudur. These don't stand a ghost of a chance of getting up to WP standards. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree with These don't stand a ghost of a chance of getting up to WP standards. The text is in good shape in terms of it's content and structure but does not cite sources for the data itself and does not cite sources to established the notability of the subject. Assuming we are not looking at hoax articles or OR/speculation then it's possible to get the text up to WP though unlikely WP:FA standards. Editors heavily involved with an article are likely to know the subject material better than most of us and would have a better understanding of the available sources, etc. Ideally the education works and "their" articles are written to or brought up to WP standards. Or the education works and editors realize they can't bring articles up to WP and so choose to move, migrate, or delete them. I see AfD as one of the "sticks" to to "encourage" editors to educate themselves but also that it should be part of a process that gets employed after education and ATD fails. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 18:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vastly excessive in-universe detail, without even trying to be about the universe we live in. It's time to break up the Honorverse walled garden. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to the Honorverse wiki, and merge to the glossary Honorverse concepts and terminology 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That article has the same problems, and is also up for deletion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, the Honorverse wiki already covers this material sufficiently, and migrating this content to another article on Wikipedia does nothing to address the contents' failure to meet WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:PLOT, WP:IINFO. Transwiki isn't necessary, merge is inappropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both. There are no reliable sources independent of the books that establish independent notability for this level of detail. Entirely original research to boot. And trivia, about things that do not exist.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiabiity/OR shouldn't be an issue with this article, as Weber has published a book of technical details of the technology used in his books (ISBN 1934153087). There was also a substantial appendix on this topic in On Basilisk Station, IIRC.  The design of the game Saganami Island Tactical Simulator can be considered a source as to the notability of this particular aspect of the Honorverse books, I feel, as it draws heavily from this. It is independent, albeit licensed by the original author.  Frankly, the well-thought-out weaponry and the ways in which they interact with each other to generate a certain kind of combat is half of what makes the books notable.  Reviews of the books frequently mention the fact that the designs of the technology conspires to produce something akin to napoleonic-era naval warfare, except in space.  Ex: "As a fellow Napoleonic history buff, I can only marvel at the skill at which he's shifted the ship tactics of Nelson to the far future. It's done largely by technological conceits. For instance, Manticore's fleet have shields that don't give 360 degree coverage, necessitating Napoleonic ship-to-ship tricks such as delivering broadsides, breaking the line, and crossing the T." JulesH (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Very neat that Weber was inspired by Nelson et al. However, notability works in the opposite direction; the article needs to establish that the weapons/technology have sufficiently influenced third parties to care enough to write/react to them. So far, no one's offered anything approaching that. --EEMIV (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what the quote above is about. It's commenting on the fact that the design of the weapons and technology of the series allows this particular style of combat to emerge.  There's more info in another useful source on the topic here. JulesH (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the author looking out and saying, "Look, here's what influenced me" or "Here's what I thought" is interesting -- but someone on the outside looking in -- offering commentary or other critical reaction -- is what is necessary to establish notability. --EEMIV (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Both — Non-notable, in-universe, more appropriate to a fan-site. I really should get set up to copy-pasta for these arguments; the article problems are all the same hence the arguments against them are all the same. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both. No notability asserted for either; both completely fail WP:NOT. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 07:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the two They're short enough for that. Objects that play a role in notable fiction aren't worth individual articles, but they're worth a paragraph in a list. There's a difference. Combination list articles is the compromise way of handling such somewhat less-than-notable things. DGG (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 06:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge also is a good idea. I voted both keep (above) and merge because both are acceptable to me Debresser (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge proposed and ready to carry out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)
 * See: Guide to deletion especially:
 * Oh my dear. Are you going to repeat this everywhere? Didn't I tell you on two other pages already that this is obvious. Debresser (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I did them all at once and they are also for others. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both as purely in-universe content that can make no claim to real-world notability. Eusebeus (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both as neither have any real-world notability. After a week at AfD and numerous voices shouting to keep these articles, there have yet to be any reliable sources added to either article. They are still only in-universe fancruft, without any reliable sources that assert notability in the real world, as required by WP:WAF. No amount of "cleaning up" can magically create notability if none exists to begin with.  Them  From  Space  04:36, 19 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.