Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic Empire (Asimov)

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Galactic Empire (Asimov)

This article is based on a fictional subject which is written completely in in-universe style and has no reliable sources or notability outside of the subject at all. The page fails WP:FICT. Blueanode (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep One of the most famous works of a notable author, spanning a dozen or more books. The tone of an article is not grounds for deletion, but rather improvement. If there are no supplied references, that is just a matter of finding them, not deleting the article. WP:FICT has a statement information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise, so in this case, I'll use WP:SOFIXIT rather than calling for deletion. Yngvarr 11:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as this article fails WP:V, WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT, in addition to which there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Asimov canon. Without these sources, the Empire should be viewed simply as a stock locational setting for his stories; no context or analysis is provided to suggest otherwise. If Yngvarr can fix the article, good for him, but unless he knows of any secondary sources, his keep argument is not supported by evidience of real-world notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment well, User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard has made huge improvements into the article, so I guess that let's me off the hook :) I'd suggest prior debaters in this AfD please re-review the article. Yngvarr 14:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Yngvarr - I think sections such as the final paragraph (George Lucas used...) could probably be expanded and sourced - I'll take a look for sources when I get home this evening shas (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator seems not to have looked for sources, as he is supposed to before wasting our time. See, for example, Google Books. Just skimming the first page of hits, I see The Galactic Empire was established as a convention in modern SF by Isaac Asimov.... The matter is evidently notable and the article would be easy to improve. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• DeleteHas no real-world notability outside of a fictional setting Whitstable (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Even aside from the improvements to the article since the AfD, based on due-dilligence research the nominator should have done I might add, Colonel Warden has noted the existance of sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. The other issues raised by nominator are reasons to clean up, not delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Needs some cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion. Articles that span multiple works in a "universe" are not forbidden (e.g. The Force and all the other minutiae in Star Wars), and Asimov and his works are among the most notable in science fiction writing TheBilly (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As noted above, there is ample proof of notability, as this is one of the most well known concepts from one of the top two or three science fiction writers ever. To get an idea of the type of treatment the subject can receive, consider the featured article Three Laws of Robotics - based on the same universe, with similar real world information. Xymmax (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - this article has multiple sources, it has real world notability for being the model for which all other space opera Earth-based governments are based on (the Federation from Star Trek, the Earth Empire from Doctor Who and extra-galactic the Empire from Star Wars) and it is roughly analogous to Tolkien's Middle-Earth in terms of how it is used by the author in multiple books. Not to mention the author is question is Issac Asimov. Web Warlock (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep None of the reasons given for deletion are sufficient for deletion. Being about a fictional subject isn't grounds for deletion. Being written entirely in-universe is grounds for an inuniverse tag, not an AfD. Reliable sources are available to demonstrate notability. Rray (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This major aspect of Asimov's work has been discussed by many third parties. This shouldn't have come to AfD without other steps outlined above being taken first. Nick mallory (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and close per WP:SNOW. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I know there's a movement afoot to eliminate 99% of all articles on "fictional universe" topics, but this particular topic, relating to a large number of works by an undeniably notable author (inarguably the most notable SF author in fact), places this within the 1% that are untouchable. If the article is lacking anything, that's a content issue. WP:SNOW, indeed. 23skidoo (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep To echo one more time, this was one of the most notable science-fiction writers ever's most developed themes. That the article doesn't show that yet is a failing of the article, not the subject. This needs to be built on, not deleted.The Zig (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per Webwarlock, others. Edward321 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as part of two important series in science fiction. 75.46.106.222 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 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.