Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydran Kingdom

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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hydran Kingdom

Hydran Kingdom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the game guide from which these ficitonal creatures are derived, and the article itself is written from an in universe perspective with no real world context. Gavin Collins 07:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

  • No, it shouldn't be considered as a whole. Somebody could argue for the deletion of an article because it is part of material that is generally getting deleted; would that be fair? Fee Fi Foe Fum 09:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That's beside the point which is that this is part of a matched set of articles which are intended to complement each other. They have been presented as separate articles for reasons of space and style. Applying arbitrary AFDs to parts of this whole is a clumsy and inefficient way to proceed. If some parts are too verbose then they should be merged as a comprehensive rewrite rather than being deleted piecemeal. Note that the policies of WP:FICT are still being hashed out and it is rather unfair to subject old articles to new stringent tests which they were not written around. There's lots of useful material in such articles and deletion just throws out the baby with the bathwater. Colonel Warden 19:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge an appropriately limited amount to Star Fleet Universe and redirect. Eventually I'd really like to see these all in one article called something like Powers of the Star Fleet Universe. Pinball22 14:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, I would create such a page, but if this is an indication, it will just get nuked too.--Donovan Ravenhull 16:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge per Pinball22. I also think that the Star Fleet Universe pages should be treated as a group since they're presented as part of a series. The universe is shared by more than one game publisher, there ought to be some reliable sources out there. Kmusser 19:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge The information, while appropriate to the notable topics related to Star Fleet Universe, would be better served as a merged article along with the other in universe government pages. It would have been more appropriate to apply a Merge Multiple articles template to the various pages (see WP:MERGE) rather then suggest deletion, which gives little time to create such a page. Please note that Gavin Collins has applied this template to the other articles that would be good candidates for merging with this article and those making their opinion noted here should check out those pages as well. Iarann 17:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There are no footnotes, so this article not got primary sources that are verifiable. If this material were added to say a Good Article, it would imediately loose its good status. Merging would cause more damage than a deletion. --Gavin Collins 18:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It not got primary sources that are verifiable? Look at the references section.
  • It has verifiable primary sources which are listed in the article, what it lacks is secondary sources, which as you've been told repeatedly are a cause for article improvement, not deletion. It is guilty of "in universe" writing, but again that's not a reason for deletion. Kmusser 19:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Commment Without proper footnotes to support citations, it is not known what the precise source of this plot summary is. In fact, it is not possible to verify whether the references given have actually been used in the body of the article. --Gavin Collins 09:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment All are reasons to merge and improve the article. Typically when an article is merged, extraneous information is removed and the article is slimmed down and properly cited. When sources are cited, and an article is not considered notable enough by itself, I don't understand why you would oppose merging. Especially when most of these articles you have already tried to delete for the exact same reasons survived (see [1] for the Klingon Empire AfD and [2] for the Romulan Star Empire AfD). I also strongly recommend you take a look at the Nomination section of the Guide to deletion which mentions you should both give thought to merging and "You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." The article does have references at the bottom of the page, and therefore with cleaning could easily be merged. I noticed you did not make this comment on any of the other pages you are proposing for deletion, which do have footnotes cited in text by primary sources. At the least, if we merged all of these race/government articles into two articles based on the Alliance and Coalition headings they seem to fall under, it would help keep things relevant and notable both to the appropriate subject and Wikipedia guidelines. A lack of inline sources is not enough for deletion, as you well know or you would have used that argument in your original nomination. To go back to your original argument for deletion, if there is no notability outside of the game guide, I do not understand why an article for the game guide itself, which is quite notable, cannot include information related to the governments involved in the game. I noticed there is a history of this (see [3] for an RFC for Gavin Collins) which leads me to some concern to your motives. While I understand a desire to clean up Wikipedia, AfD is not the only solution, nor should it be rushed to. Instead, things like merging and working to clean up articles and cite sources should be emphasized first. I will reiterate the points I have made here on the other 4 or 5 pages you marked for deletion in this subject, as the articles are linked and if the solution is a merge or keep, the other articles would be either strongly affected and vice verse. Iarann 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Response This article has a fundamental problem which you have failed to address and that is that is clearly fails WP:NOT#PLOT. There is no real-world content in this article and as such this article falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. There are many alternative fan sites and fan wikis where this material would be welcomed with open arms. As regards your attempt to discredit me personally, it just does not bother me. I know that I am contributing to WP by pointing out to you the issues which should be addressed: there are guidelines for WP articles, and this one contravenes those guidelines. --Gavin Collins 18:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Response I understand it fails the plot summary check, that is why I suggest a merger of the various articles into a useful, streamlined one. To quote a line from the very policy you are referencing "A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." So this doesn't explain why you oppose merging the article and would prefer to delete it. I'm not concerned with discrediting you, I am providing context for what is going on here. I agree that these articles do not need to be separate, in their present state at least they violate this policies. But as others have suggested before, cleaning up Wikipedia does not mean mass deletion of articles. There is useful information in this article that could be streamlined and included in another, more over arching article. To quote myself, "To go back to your original argument for deletion, if there is no notability outside of the game guide, I do not understand why an article for the game guide itself, which is quite notable, cannot include information related to the governments involved in the game." Why not suggest merge instead of deletion for these articles? Please see Alternatives for Deletion from the Deletion Policy article. You can even look to the reason previous articles in the same position that you have nominated have not been deleted, see the section when dealing with sub-articles in WP:FICT which talks about how sub articles should be treated as different sections of the parent article as long as they are clearly identified, which this one is. To quote from the policy: "In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should still strive to provide real-world content." This one does not properly provide real-world content, so it must be cleaned up or fixed, but if you notice the word strive in there, you can see that this is intended as room for improvement. Deleting every article that needs work will lead to lots of wasted time and a much weaker Wikipedia. This isn't about picking a fight or attacking you, this is about protecting information that could be lost instead of corrected. If I were attacking you, I wouldn't quote numerous policy guidelines. Iarann 23:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Not having proper footnotes isn't a reason for deletion. I don't think any one is debating that the article needs help. Kmusser 13:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It is a reason for deletion. In fact, it is the reason. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I looked over at WP:DEL#REASON again and still didn't see "no footnotes" listed. Kmusser 14:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge Per Pinball22 and Kmusser. Kmusser's comments are particularly helpful, as some people here do seem to think that lack of secondary sources is a reason for deletion rather than improvement. Rray 02:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Some people? It's straight up Wikipedia policy, and only broken for the likes of Harry Potter. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge per Pinball22 and Kmusser. Edward321 05:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:45, 12 November 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.