Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Miningcamp

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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Miningcamp

Minor fictional skirmish in a minor science fiction novel. Redirect reverted, prod disputed. Should be deleted or redirected to/merged with the book, Midshipman's Hope. Gamaliel 00:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, it's no Minas Tirith. It has no secondary sources writing about it, so everything that can be said about it comes from the book and belongs in the book's article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -This article should go, info such as this should be in main article on book. --Bryson 03:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• MERGE, don't delete content that doesn't itself violate Policy such as WP:NPOV. Sheesh.— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It probably does violate WP:NOR though. WilyD 14:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons stated on the article talk page and repeated below

1)The article is not a stub, and therefore already has a significant amount of information which can be added to- indeed, it is longer than many articles in [[Category:fictional battles.

2)The Seafort Saga is military sci-fi and therefore battles play a significant part in the plot, particularly since this is the major battle of Midshipman's Hope

3)The battle plays a vital role in several plot arcs, notably Seafort's belief in his own incompetence, his conflict with Pilot Haynes, and coming to terms with the execution of Tuak and Rogoff.

4)From an in-universe perspective, Seafort's acclamation as the "Hero of Miningcamp" plays an important role in Seafort being confirmed as Commander of Challenger- and therefore the continuation of the series.

In addition to this, if there is eventually a consensus that this single battle does not deserve an article (though I believe it does) I suggest moving it to Minor battles of the Seafort Saga or similar, which can be expanded, following the precedent of Minor battles in The Lord of the Rings. Many of which are far less important from an IU perspective than Miningcamp. MartinMcCann 10:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - 76 Hits on Google and the book is not famous either.
• Delete This is - I forget the word - cruft? Trivial detail of a not notable book. This book is not Lord of the Rings. WP:NOT a source of indiscriminate information. Also many of the comments on this page are WP:OR since the only source is the book.Obina 20:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - fancruft. Nuke the page from orbit. Pete Fenelon 01:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- if this is being considered for deletion on the grounds of being "cruft" then why are there so many individual articles on kings of Arnor? There's far less information on them than on this battle, yet they have articles. Plus as I've already said, it is not a trivial part of the book, and although the book itself may not be the most popular in history it is notable. MartinMcCann 15:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please nominate these others for deletion then. Wikipedia is better if it contains 1.6 million good articles rather than 2.7 million bad articles. Deletion is one part in keeping Wikipedia good.Obina 21:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Though I wouldn't object to it being folded into a condensed list of battles. Considering the state of Midshipman's Hope I think it would be better to concentrate on that article and the rest of the series. FrozenPurpleCube 20:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft; we really don't need articles on individual events/battles in fictional series. The book in this case doesn't even seem to be very notable, lack of third party sources also not a good thing. Is anyone else a little bit saddened that many fictional battles get more detailed articles than actual battles? --The Way 07:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the artivcle on the book, which presently has a plot summary copied from the blurb on the back of the book. I see no reason for such a detailed plot summary, sort of a Cliff's Notes to save someone having to read the book. That said, I look forward to reading the books, since I liked the Hornblower novels these seem modelled after. Edison 20:45, 26 November 2006 (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.