Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pentastar Alignment

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pentastar Alignment

Pentastar Alignment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

In-universe plot summary with no assertion of notability or even context for non-fans. --EEMIV (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No assertion of notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This fails WP:FICT. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• There does not appear to be any evidence in any of the above rationales that editors have checked any of the three sources cited in the article (at the time of nomination), to see how in-depth their coverage of this subject actually is. As such, the rationales about notability are flawed. I suggest that editors familiarize themselves with the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability, and then actually make the effort to examine the provenances and depths of the sources cited. Uncle G (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm familiar with the sources. All they do is substantiate plot summary. There are no sources -- or even claims -- about this topic's real-world notability, development, critical response etc. I know WP:N -- how about you take a look at WP:FICT and WP:WAF. --EEMIV (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:WAF began life as an essay that I wrote in January 2005. By arguing that the source substantiates the summary, you have argued that it is verifiable from a secondary source, rather than verifiable solely through reading the works of fiction themselves, and not original research. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The origins of WAF don't particularly matter. Consensus in January 2008 is that articles about fictional topics need to demonstrate real-world significance, and not simply regurgitate the plot. This article does not do this. The article does not even assert that the topic matters in the real world, let alone why it matters or where that evidence is found. --EEMIV (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- As there is no assertion of notability through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The book by Kevin J. Anderson, the very first source cited, would seem to be a reliable source. After all he, of all people, would seem to be an expert in this area. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability is established through multiple reliable secondary sources, so that would be a start. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep because a more generally understandable article can be written since there are sources. As is, just as EEMIV says, it takes an expert to figure it out. DGG (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep I'm certainly not an expert here, but I did find an article on the topic from 1994. Really I don't have a clue how important the topic is, but it does seem sourced. Hobit (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Should have mentioned I added the source. It is an entire article on the topic. I don't have access to the article, but I'm still guessing that what looks like a ~15 page article in a published magazine is a reasonable source. But I honestly don't know, thus the weak keep. Hobit (talk) 20:29, 18 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.