Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wunderland (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   delete. WP:N, a community-accepted guideline, requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" for inclusion. The article cites only a partially accessible book review that does not appear to describe this fictional planet in any depth. Most "keep" opinions do not address this issue, preferring to claim instead - without basis in community-accepted rules - that WP:N does not apply to fictional subjects in the same way as it does to other subjects, or they just assert that the article is "sourced" or that the sources are "okay", without discussing the nature of the sources present in the light of the sourcing requirements of WP:N. These requirements are important beyond the issue of notability proper, because if they are not met, an article will often also fail WP:V and/or WP:NOR. I am therefore bound to give these "keep" opinions less weight, resulting in a "delete" consensus.  Sandstein  17:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wunderland
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This fictional location does not establish notability independent of Known Space through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep A drive-by, cookie-cutter nomination which does not seem to have followed the correct AFD process at WP:BEFORE. I had no difficulty locating several sources and have cited one. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You have added an article going over a book about the planet, which has nothing to do with the actual topic of the fictional planet. If you have sources pertaining the real world treatment of the actual topic, feel free to add them to the article, but do not claim that an irrelevant source is a reason to keep it. TTN (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A book about the planet obviously has a lot to do with the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, primary sources are not able to help with notability. It could help if you want to spruce it up for a transwiki, but it won't help in this discussion. TTN (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nom, no evidence of notability from real world third party sources. dougweller (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- fictional material needs demonstrated real-world impact to justify an article on Wikipedia, which this subject fails to do. And Colonel Warden, aren't your responses to TTN just as drive-by and cookie-cuttery as the nominations you are criticizing? Reyk  YO!  21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No - I'm the only one doing any real work here as I actually check the sources and work on the articles. The source I cited in this case was Quadrant magazine which is a literary journal, not a book as you all unthinkingly assume.  All your opinions should be dismissed as knee-jerk and shallow reactions which are not based upon a proper consideration of the topic.  Note also that in the case of other nominations, such as Kdaptists, I did not find an adequate source to support an article and so suggested a merge. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that all you added was an article going over the book, which is not any better in the least. Feel free to add it to an article on the book, but it has no relevance here. TTN (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with my consideration of the topic. Primary sources and a single secondary source about the book in general, rather than the planet in particular, do nothing to establish notability. Reyk  YO!  22:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No particular number of sources is required to establish notability and the finding of one after making a brief search is good evidence that there are more to be found. Your rejection of this source indicates an unwillingness to accept this topic regardless of what is found - an entrenched position which does you no credit.  Colonel Warden (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My rejection of this source indicates nothing more than an ability to distinguish a passing mention in the context of another topic from substantial coverage of the thing itself. I have no entrenched position: I could point you to many AfD discussions where I have changed or modified my position because something's turned up to make me reconsider. The fact that there's no reason for me to change my mind on this topic doesn't make me stubborn or unreasonable. And this will be the last time I respond to one of your ad hominem attacks. Reyk  YO!  23:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are open-minded then this is good to hear. My characterisation of your position was based upon your statement that the finding of a source did "nothing to establish notability".  This seemed to be too absolute and negative a statement in the circumstances as I consider that this source is a good token of notability since it well indicates that the ficntional planet has been noticed. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a general standard of what establishes notability for fictional topics. There is certainly no specific number, but one single irrelevant source is not going to do a thing. By using your standard and logic, every fictional topic is notable because all we have to do is find a source talking about the topic's primary work, which means that it will be obvious that more sources can be found. That doesn't really equal out. TTN (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Most mass-market fiction is notable because it has an audience of millions and so is of interest to our readership and also the developing fields of media studies and the like. Niven's Known Space series was a big hit in its day.  It is perhaps passé now but has left its mark.  Serious research of this topic would involve perusal of many sources which predate the Internet and so are not readily accessible  online - magazines like Locus, for example.  Per our editing policy and deletion policy, we should give such articles the benefit of the doubt since there is nothing to be gained by delation and everything to lose. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is most certainly not the case. Such opinions belong with the FICT discussion, not here. We give articles the benefit of the doubt when they actually assert some kind of notability. This has done no such thing, so it does not deserve such treatment. At such a time where information is actually found, the article can easily be undeleted or unredirected anyway. TTN (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Rather than rehashing we should specifically debate the sources being provided here. They're not the books themselves, but rather some other publication discussing it. So they're independent. TTN called the Magazine sources "an article going over the book", it didn't. It discussed the world - aka the fictional location up for deletion here. That's what a source is supposed to do. - Mgm|(talk) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article? It gives a brief paragraph about the setting of the book, but it other than that it just reviews Man-Kzin Wars X: The Wunder War. TTN (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This article really doesn't establish notability outside its source material. There's nothing really here for an article either as it stands, and I'm not convinced that there would be.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Sourced, and would be improved with analysis of material in some SF commentray or other. notable plot element in notable novel series. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sourced? What sources? Other than warmed-over plot summary taken from the stories, the only source I see is a book review--in effect, a third-hand warmed-over plot summary. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Casliber, MgM. Edward321 (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep fictional material is important because of its importance in fiction. Not because of its importance in the real world. what is fictional importance in the real world? as guide to conduct?--fiction as justifying itself  by its effect on the real world is not a concept to regulate coverage in a modern encyclopedia. The view that sources outside of fiction are necessary for notability is a very disputed view indeed, and saying it comes very close to IDONTLIKEIT--ANDNEITHERDOAFEWOTHERPEOPLE. DGG (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually requiring reliable third-party sources is a pillar of Wikipedia, not an inconvenience. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per facts stated by Kung Fu Man. Ryan 4314   (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per CW. Sourcing, while limited is okay. Plus nom is ignoring WP:BEFORE (per his own comments above) and his AfD noms should be viewed with care. Hobit (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. Jay32183 (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm curious where the "real world context" requirement is coming from. Is that policy/guideline based or your personal opinion of what you want in sources? Honest question as I thought all guidelines with that wording/idea were removed or changed.  Thanks. 141.212.111.116 (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PLOT remains unchanged. Also, no real world context means only primary sources were used, WP:N requires secondary sources. Jay32183 (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PLOT doesn't mention anything about "significant coverage of real world context" (at least that I see), nor is WP:PLOT a reason for deletion. And there are certainly _non_ primary sources that aren't "real world".  An encyclopedia of Science Fiction, for example, could discuss this in the context of the fictional world and be a non-primary source.  So I'm really not seeing where you are going here.  I agree reliable secondary sources are needed, but they need not focus on real world context any more than they need to focus on how it relates to World War II.  Such a real world context can be desirable, but there is nothing I can find that makes it a reason for deletion, just improvement. WP:FICT was going that way (and could be a reason for deletion) but WP:PLOT doesn't seem to.  Hobit (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N requires significant coverage. Secondary sources don't count if they only reiterate primary sources. The reason for preferring secondary sources is to have analysis rather than just raw data. If there aren't sources for this article to satisfy WP:PLOT than it is a reason for deletion. We can't make up our own real world content, that would be original research. Jay32183 (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. I'm merely asking about the requirement of "real world context" in those reliable secondary sources.  I think that's not a policy or guideline and not a generally accepted reason for deletion, but I see it stated fairly often, so I wanted to know where it was coming from.  Hobit (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since we can't play policies and guidelines against each other the article must satisfy WP:N and WP:PLOT at the same time. That requires proper sources for information beyond plot. Jay32183 (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PLOT is an essay now days. And even as a guideline it is about writing style, it never was an inclusion guideline. If there is a WP:PLOT problem, it's a reason to fix, not delete.  If you refer to NOT:PLOT, again it doesn't require sources cover the material in any particular way.  Hobit (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, WP:PLOT used to redirect to WP:NOT, which is policy. An article cannot consist of only plot, therefore sources for not plot are required. We can't fix the problem if there aren't sources for real world context. The problem you seem to be having is that you're looking at policies in isolation, rather than all of them at once. In order to satisfy WP:NOT there must be real world context, but the real world context cannot fail WP:V or WP:NOR (or WP:N in the case of stand alone articles). Jay32183 (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say you've managed to combine policies in a way that makes an interesting mix that few would agree on. If the plot part meets WP:N we can have an article on it.  The real world parts need not use secondary sources (primary can be fine). Consider most books.  We take reviews (generally only touching on plot) for meeting WP:N.  The reviews rarely touch on anything other than plot.  But primary sources (the author for example) can provide real world context as needed.  Hobit (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I'm not seeing any actual sources, I'm not seeing slightest real-world context, and I'm not seeing any content other than warmed-over plot summary and trivia (the planet's inhabitants can wriggle their ears?). --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. No evidence of real-world notability. Eusebeus (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2008 (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.