Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clan (Warriors)

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 delete per consensus of established editors. --Coredesat 05:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clan (Warriors)

Clan (Warriors) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Doesn't seem notable, seems like fancruft, lacks sources Pilotbob 22:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


  • Keep. This would be better with sources, and isn't fancruft. With a few in-text citations, it would be better. CrowstarCrow callsTalon Marks 23:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Crowstar, and I vote to keep the article. It doesn't contain fancruft. It contains vital information on the universe of that series... Though, yes, I suppose citing sources would be better, but the article doesn't need to be deleted. It just needs some work. TakaraLioness 23:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with them both I think we should keep it because the article isn't fancruft...If you need sorces I could surely find them I found them once before and I could find them again.VampiricCat 01:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC) — VampiricCat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete per the arguments used at deletions for Bits of the Exalted series and List of ancient jedi... Falls into Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#PLOT as an unsourceable plot summary that only has in-world context. Not only is the article unsourced to reliable places but appears to be unsourceable. I cannot find, and doubt there is, any third-party writing about the clans inside Warriors (novel series). At best it should attract a small paragraph in the book series article (if even that can be sourced) - Peripitus (Talk) 00:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not fan site. No independent notability. --S.dedalus 00:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is so badly written I have trouble figuring out what it is. Seems to just be character summaries with no real world notability. If this is saved it needs to be massively rewritten.Ridernyc 01:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is complete and utter crap. We've had this page for over a year... Nothing is wrong with it. It's not fancruft -it very clearly explains what the Warriors universe is like for those interested or confused by something in the books. And FYI, we HAVE references! Just look at the frickin' bottom of the page. We just don't cite every little thing... But, if you want that done, I'd do it. But don't nominate it for deletion just because of that - especially when you have no real knowledge of what the page is. --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 03:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Basically, I think you are being far too extreme here. If you think something is wrong, give us time to fix it, don't be an ass and jump strait to deletion. --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 03:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
the issue is not that the article is poor but that the subject is inherently unencyclopediac. It is not verifyable to third-party reliable sources...only to sources from within. If there are no significant third-parties writing directly about the subject then no amount of work can save the article - Peripitus (Talk) 09:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, or transwiki to a fan wiki, if they even want it. Incoherency can be solved by editing, but a lack of out-of-universe reliable source material cannot, and I see no indication that substantial amounts of such source material exist. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Is the Shinigami (Bleach) article fancruft? No. Is the Clan (Warriors) page fancruft? No. They both provide factual information about their respective universes - they are exactly the same in that respect, why is this one being put up for deletion, though? And I don't get why you continue pressing that these do not have sources - THEY DO! Just look at the bottom under "references." Every single novel of the Warriors series acted as a reference for this page! If you want specific page numbers, this can easily be done. All I'm saying is - yes, we CAN add in "better" sources. Give us a few weeks to do that rather than just deleting the page! --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 11:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is one of thousands of popular culture articles on wikipedia. I'm not fond of the category, but the solution is not to delete individual articles, where people have spent hours and hours to get things right. It would make more sense to try to get consensus to create a guideline to disallow this kinds of articles altogether. But even if such a guideline was approved, some respect for all the work people have spent on these articles is needed, and the information should be moved elsewhere - not deleted. Mlewan 13:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Additional comment: from the other keep comments, it seems clear that the page is actually both useful and used by people. To me that is a pretty good criterion to keep the page. It is certainly possible to improve it - a lot, but it serves a purpose. Mlewan 04:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
See WP:USEFUL#It_is_useful. Metros 10:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious that usefulness on its own is not a sufficient argument to keep the article. Neither is the fact that people spent a lot of time on it. Neither that there are thousands of other articles with similar content. And so on. However, to make an overall judgement it would be silly to completely ignore those factors. Mlewan 12:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete And what is this article about? Unsalvageable; no sources, incoherent, in-universe, no notability, fancruft, the list goes on. Recreate it if you want to make it coherent and take the time to source, but the current version belongs in the wastebasket. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 18:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The other Warriors pages are about the characters and the books themselves. What else are we supposed to do for confused fans? Go to each of them individually and explain it? This has many articles that would not fit onto any other page. Seriously, I can't see what's wrong with it. Lakestorm 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Lakestorm Lakestorm 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Also wanted to add, none of it--none, zip, zero--is fancruft. Lakestorm 23:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Lakestorm Lakestorm 23:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. How is this fancruft? It is totally logical and explains the geography, cats, customs, history, and etc. of the Clans in the series Warriors. This needs to stay and it shouldn't be deleted.

-CloudWind

  • PS: I agree with whoever said we should have time to fix it before it is deleted.
    • PSS: I've used this article many, MANY time while writing fanfics, and others the same! Trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.204.174 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC) — 68.2.204.174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. This article is very useful. It gives you tons of facts and helpful information for warrior series readers!! And when something when needs work, you let people know and you work at it!!! To think people spent hours and hours on it. And to all the dumbos who said delete...I bet you dont even read the series...This article is PERFECT!!!so if your going to critize it when you dont even read it......DONT READ IT common sense!!!-no offense- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.224.221 (talk • contribs)
    • PS- THIS ARTICLE IS NOT FANCRUFT!!! Fruit Salad, a girl who knows what she is doing...jerks71.252.224.221 04:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC) — 71.252.224.221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep This article for it is very informational and can help Warriors readers better understand things, or give them something to do. Also links in the blue print to take them to another article, saving time. Also, might help get people into the series itself out of interest. And may show things Warriors readers might not know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.99.72 (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC) — 69.37.99.72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep!! This article is not any sort of fancraft. seriously, it's helpful info that can be used for further understanding of the warriors novels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.134.43 (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC) — 72.146.134.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I'm a member of the Delete clan. 100% in-universe fancruft. Clarityfiend 03:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is awesome. We've worked really hard on it, and would hate to see it deleted and do it all over again. This article really helps all warrior fans and people who wants to get into warrios. DON NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE!!PLEEZ!Cloud Salad 04:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Cloud Salad — Cloud Salad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Note to closing admin See This ANI thread regarding admitted sockpuppetry by this user. One of the earlier IP !votes is also added by this user. Metros 14:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you delete this then you might as well delete the Harry Potter page. Just because the Warriors series is less popular doesn't mean you have to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.214.28 (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Entirely in-universe fancruft. east.718 at 09:06, 10/21/2007
  • Delete Not just in-universe fancruft, also completely lacking any independent sources whatsoever. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete pure fancruft. Hut 8.5 12:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • How the holy crap is any of this fancruft? The allegiances are as they stand as of the books; all of the ceremonies have been used in the books; all the medicine cat herbs have been explained in the books (and more outright in Secrets of the Clans); the history of the Clans is in the books; the hierarchy is in the books; the mythology is in the books. Do you think the team of Warriors editors who do so much to keep the characters and other Warriors sections so free of speculation would let this whole article slip? All of us have read the books and we can all assure that, as far as Warriors is concerned, everything is fact. You may see it as useless and in-universe, but to a Warriors fan it makes perfect sense. Want to look up a ceremony for a fanfic? Check. Writing a list of medicine cat herbs? Check. Want to determine exactly how the hierarchy ladder goes? Check. Also to add, if this is deleted, where would we put it? Unless we keep this page, a whole mass of useFUL information will go to waste. Warriors fans who might need to look something up would be lost. Sincerely, Lakestorm 12:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Lakestorm Lakestorm 12:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Lakestorm, all your comments here are exactly how this is "fancruft" as everyone else has termed it. Wikipedia is not a repository of information that fans can reference in order to write their fan fictions. It's information for everyone, everywhere. The highest policies of Wikipedia are based on sourcing from independent sources, not sources that are the book or the author. Just because they're explained in the book doesn't mean it's sourced by our standards. Metros 14:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There are no independent, reliable sources to show how this article's topic exists outside the fan world of the books. The comments by those !voting keep are proving the point that this article only really exists to provide information for fans to write their fan fictions. This kind of information is appropriate for a fan website, but not for Wikipedia. Metros 14:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep provisionally. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but I read some of the information referenced on this page regarding Wikipedia's standards, and I think I understand where you are coming from. If I understand correctly, you are saying that articles which merely describe the content of a book without any external connections aren't acceptable. So if there were sourced discussion of the social impact of the Warriors clans, for example, would that be acceptable? Because I think that with some work, information could be added describing how the concept of Warrior clans has become a social phenomenon that extends beyond the books. I don't know how much third party writing has been done on the subject, but it would help if you could provide the editors of this article time to research and provide that information, rather than automatically deleting it. I wrote an article which was published in an electronic children's literature journal back in March that may help in a small way, although much more research will be needed: http://www.theedgeoftheforest.com/archive/2007/apr/feature.shtml SheilaRuth 17:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The article has had a lot of time to be fixed. It's been up for a ear as it is so there's been plenty of time to clean it up. As for your source, it has little to no relevance to the topic at hand. Your source is just a summary of the books it seems. On top of that, you shouldn't be adding sources to articles that you yourself wrote. Metros 18:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I was actually not adding my article as a source, since I'm not offering to edit the topic myself, just suggesting it as one possible article that someone could use in a small way. And while I wrote it, it was published by an independent third party. It's true that part of it is a summary of the books, but part of it discusses the social impact of the books, which if I understand falls under the definition of external, rather than internal. I've been an observer of this phenomenon for a couple of years, and have some expertise on it. As for the fact that it's been up for a year, I don't believe that the editors of this article have understood the problems with it sufficiently to fix them. I'm suggesting that with some guidance, they could do better. While I don't have the time to edit it myself, I'll be glad to offer the editors some guidance on bringing it into spec if you give them more time. SheilaRuth 19:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Ya, you're seeing me as Spottedfire, but it's really Starsight. I sometimes try to keep Wikipedia content in line, and I know that many people work hard to keep this forum as true as possible. Like someone already said, if you delete this topic, you may as well delete every other fantasy book topic on Wikipedia. There's no point in keeping them if this one goes. And may I remind you that Warriors is nearly as popular as Harry Potter, if not as heard of. Spottedfire 15:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Where are the external sources for this though? It's great that you all say it's true and that you worked so hard on it, but aside from being a place for you all to use as a guideline to help you write fan fiction, where are the answers to the other issues being raised in this AFD about external sources? Metros 19:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a book series. What else are we supposed to do? Aside from reviews--which don't add to this page--author chats, and tours, we don't have anything that we can use as reference.

If you delete this page, as Spottedfire said, you may as well delete every other book article on Wikipedia. Lakestorm 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Lakestorm Lakestorm 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. It seems fairly obvious (not least from this http://wandsandworlds.com/community/node/1998) that this Wikipedia page is being used as an extension of fan sites. The Warriors series may be notable, but this list is not useful to anyone other than, possibly, a fan of the books. That’s almost the definition of fancruft. Also that fact that “many editors have worked hard on this article” above, has zero bearing on whether this article should be deleted. --S.dedalus 20:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment since people are so passionate about this I highly recommend they start a warriors wiki. Rather then fight a losing battle her make something out of what you have.Ridernyc 20:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I do very much believe that some people, Metros in particular, are not even trying to understand what this article is about, and are just assuming what it is based on what others said. (based on this edit). It is not just "about a group of cats." The groups of cats in the Warriors universe have complex societies, and this page is meant to explain those. I bring up Shinigami (Bleach) again. It has nothing but sources from the manga itself, and yet its status as an article isn't being contested. Why, though? It has the exact same purpose as this (My god, are you serious? That was put up for deletion too? Pilotbob, it is my personal opinion that you need to stop with this deletion rampage, and actually bother to read articles and understand their purpose.) The Clan (Warriors) page is meant to explain the society of a fictional universe. The Clan (Warriors) page is not just a reference guide for fanfics, and therefore fancruft, but is meant to be an informative article about the fictional universe and its key points. As for the person who said we did have time to fix it - That is rather preposterous, seeing as we were never told anything was wrong. ;-) --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 21:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Might I also add that, as per WP:WAF, a work of fiction is in fact an acceptable source for articles about that work of fiction. And I'll repeat once more that we have no lack of those. --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 21:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "It is not just 'about a group of cats.' Oh really? From the first sentence of the article: "In the fictional series of Warriors, there are four groups of cats, called Clans". So yes, it is about groups of cats. It is not about medicines. Metros 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, yeah it is. It's about diseases that affect those Clans, that the medicine cats (part of the Clans) have to help the Clans survive. I told you, we can expand it to include all the Warriors things, not just the Clans. >.> Lakestorm 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

But that doesn't belong in an article titled "Clans." This article is not to be about ALL things Warriors. It's to be about clans in the series. Metros 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Then we'll make a new article just for that. v.v Lakestorm 22:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that just because you have no real understanding about what an article is truly about, it needs to be automatically deleted. Just because it's from a book series doesn't mean it has to be totally fancruft. It may be fiction, but that doesn't mean it's all false, and fan work. It even says at the top of the page that is is a fictional series.

It does not just help people with fan fiction. If somebody is confused about something in the books, or even wants to start reading, they can come to this--or any of the Warriors pages--and get an answer.

Maybe you think it's pointless because it's fiction. Fine. You think that. I might add that, if you like Harry Potter, then you won't think the Harry Potter articles are pointless, just as Warriors fans don't think Warriors articles are pointless. Sincerely, Lakestorm 22:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

actually there is already a warriors wiki http://warriors.wikia.com/. All this information is already there and I'm sure the people posting in this debate already knew this. Ridernyc 04:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! No, I was not aware of it, and it does open for the possibility to move the article content over there, I suppose. However, I stick to my keep vote. For your assumption of what we already knew, I knew absolutely nothing about the Warriors, the Clan or any Warrior Wikis. I had never heard of them before, and I have seen nothing that would tempt me to read any of the books. It is a category of literature I do not like at all. However, I do respect that other people may like it.
By the way, I realise that this page is now protected so only Wikipedia authors can edit it. Wikipedia readers have no say. I am not sure I consider that fair in this kind of discussion. Mlewan 05:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It is fair because this AFD is being spammed on forums by users in order to garner more support by people. This is wholly inappropriate and creates an unfair AFD. Metros 10:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have not perceived that there was a flood of spam here. If people are informed that they can participate and they have an interest, they should be allowed to do so. There is nothing unfair about coming with new arguments. As we all know, this is not a vote. The semi-protection prevents people from coming with arguments, which could sway the debate. However, if all of them just say "keep my page!" or "kick that page out!", the decision taker is clearly free to ignore all of them. Mlewan 13:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Metros, it's not your place to insult me and get mad at me for asking for help, and I refuse to regret what I have done. It's not spam, as you say it is. We want to save the page. And at the time I ddidn't realize it wasn't a majority vote. Move on with your life and stop mooning over it. What does it matter to you--and to all the others who says "Delete"--if it is deleted? Don't come look at it. The Warriors fans want it. You don't. You don't read Warriors. What does it matter to you if it is deleted if you don't even need it?

By the way, I'm not afraid of standing up to an administrator. Ban me if you will, just stop talking about that post. That's all I care about right now--that and keeping the page.

Also, I don't give a care what you think of me. I just want you to stop bringing up that post. Lakestorm 20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • delete. Wikipedia is about things, based to real sources, not on fictiojnal sources. Mukadderat 01:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    Really? I've been here for several years and never seen us make that distinction. As it happens, there's a quote that seems quite insightful: "Verifiability and reliability is about having your information sourced to accurate publications, there is no source in existence more accurate than the original work for information about the fiction it contains. As regards in universe information, the use of third party sources is not only nonsensical but harmful, as it will lead to the inclusion of information sourced to things like inaccurate third-party reviews." --Kizor 02:16, 25 October 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.