Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 with possible merge. This discussion does not establish consensus for any particular merge action, so such actions should be determined by discussion on the article talk pages of the affected articles. Danaman5 (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banik

Non-notable fictional race. Consensus has been strong about the much more in-universe-notable races Ancients (Farscape) (AfD) and Peacekeeper (Farscape) (AfD), so I'm making this a group nomination of almost all other Farscape races articles and let the community decide. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Belongs in a Farscape transwiki, maybe, but not in an encyclopedia. Collectonian 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT -- "Summary descriptions of plot, characters and settings are appropriate only in the context of real-world information, not when they are the sole content of an article or told entirely from an in-universe perspective. This applies both to stand-alone works and to series." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, all these have been tagged, prodded and AfDed in the past, and no sources have appeared. AnteaterZot 00:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Some of these should be deleted, but the list is enough of a mix between significant and non-significant species that a big sweeping deletion would be a mistake. Certainly the central Luxans and Delvians, for instance, can't be lumped in with the one-episode-only Builders! Is there any consensus on what makes a fictional species notable? Would articles on Vulcans, Romulans, Klingons, Cylons, Hobbits, etc. be deleted? --Icarus ^(Hi!) 10:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The significance or lack thereof for a species cannot be determined without any notability established by multiple coverage of reliable sources -- which would be items like mainstream publications or making-of books, not fan websites. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Many Star Trek species' articles cite primarily episodes, Star Trek magazines, Star Trek books, and official websites as sources. These all exist for Farscape, too, so the major Farscape species at least could be given sources on par with many of the Star Trek species. Some of the minor species should be deleted, but again, the major species need to be considered separately and improved with sources rather than deleted for lack thereof where appropriate. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. These do not aspire to an encyclopedic standards that emphasises real-world significance. This is better off as wikia content where there is no prohibition on in-universe focus. Eusebeus 13:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep and merge as appropriate there is no prohibition here on a in-universe focus, just on writing articles in such a way that they do not refer to the real world at all, in an exclusively in-universe fashion as in a fan wikia where the working assumption is that they are the real world. Note two key word in the nom, which need to be empahsised, "sole" content , and " entire;y" in-universe. By combining this, it can be related to the development of the series--unlike the characters, the fiction as a whole does exist in the real world. DGG (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete All as all of these articles are basically plot summaries with no primary sources to verify the origin of their content, and no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins 11:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Not only should these articles be kept (without prejudice to merging some of the less notable topics to other articles which provide better context), but the two deleted articles should be restored. I think people are confusing the requirement to write from an out-of-universe perspective with a perceived prohibition on "in-universe information"; in-universe information is not prohibited if it is presented from an out-of-universe perspective, which makes fixing these articles an editing and merging issue, not a deletion issue. Plenty of reliable sources exist to establish notability for numerous significant plot elements in Farscape, such as: Science Fiction Television from the Praeger Television Collection, Farscape: The Illustrated Companion, Investigating Farscape: Uncharted Territories of Sex and Science Fiction, The Farscape Season Two Episode Guide : An Unofficial Guide with Critiques (and those for the other seasons), and Farscape Forever!: Sex, Drugs and Killer Muppets. These sources include copious coverage of the Ancients and Peacekeepers, as well as significant coverage of other Farscape races. DHowell (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The two AfDs mentioned in the nomination each had only six commenters, only three of which said delete. I know AfD is not a vote, but the idea that 3 out of 6 establishes a "strong consensus" is ludicrous. DHowell (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep possibly merge where appropriate. Agathoclea (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep, possibly merge. And I agree that the two previous AfDs that resulted "delete" were pretty darned weak. If a merge is done let me know and I'll create redirects and undelete the histories so that the deleted material can be incorporated in a GFDL-compliant manner. Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Without sources, all we have is a bunch of calls for WP:ILIKEIT. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  - As DHowell and I have noted, there are sources to demonstrate the notability of several of the species, the articles just need to include them. If an article is notable but has a problem, the solution is to correct the problem, not to delete the article. Non-notability is a criterion for deletion; inadequate listing of sources for a notable topic is not. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    - I was around for the tumultuous AfD on Eidelon. Sources were promised, vigorously searched for, and not found. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
      - The Eidelon were in a total of 2 or 3 episodes, for a total screen time of maybe 15 minutes. I would have supported deletion if I'd been around for that AfD. Other species in this mass nomination, however, are absolutely central to Farscape. The non-notability of some species does not make them all non-notable. That's exactly why this mass nomination is a bad idea. It's like nominating Neo and "Robot #3" from The Matrix in the same AfD. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
        
        Sounds like a train wreck, then. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep There are countless wikipedia entries for subjects and events that exist only as part of a fictional world relating to a tv show, movie, book etc. What are you going to do? Purge them all? Atraxus (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge all and thoroughly re-write as per WP:WAF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge and cut the true cruft to Fictional races in Farscape or the like. While each is NN, the total group is probably notable. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment as nominator I am a little surprised that the recommendation for these less-notable races is more in favor of keeping/merging than the Ancients and the Peacekeepers. (I recommended merging in both AfDs, but thought after the deletion that a merge is no longer wanted by the community). If the result of this AfD is to merge, can the closing admin please resurrect the Ancients and the Peacekeepers article so that they can be included in the merge? As I said, they are far more in-universe-notable than any of the ones listed here. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:43, 11 December 2007 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Banik

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search