Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vor of Barrayar

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 Viridae^Talk 07:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vor of Barrayar

Vor of Barrayar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article consists almost entirely of plot summary and in-universe content without real-world context or analysis, which breaks WP:NOT#PLOT, and has no reliable secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Google returns only 8 hits which appear to be non-reliable fansites and the like and unrelated hits which indicates this topic has never recieved substantial coverage from acceptable secondary sources. As such, it is unlikely any amount of rewriting or improvement can bring the article up to policy by providing real-world significance or establishing notability. Once unencyclopedic, in-universe material is removed (per WP:FICT#Non-notable_topics), there would no content to merge into another article. Doctorfluffy (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. A lot of speculation and some regurgitation of in-universe info from the series (but not a plot summary). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. If this article were deleted, almost all of the information would end up on the Vorkosigan Saga page and that would violate Wikipedia's policy for an article being too long. A lot of people put a lot of effort into that page and I am sure that they will reuse the info and post it somewhere... Additionally, this is not a minor part of the plot, this is a huge social concept the author introduces that plays a major role in the story. It also shadows real life feudalism. I agree this not a featured-class article hell it's not even a good article, and maybe it needs a template for "Doesn't meet Wiki Standards for Citations" or something along those lines. SO yeah it needs verification and cleanup, but it really doesn't need to be deleted. By the way, I thought using # Google hits as a measure of importance was against the rules too? Anyway I vote Keep and let wiki-time improve it. Dachande (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  If the subject of this AFD is indeed a "huge social concept" then there should certainly be reliable secondary sources that have devoted significant coverage to it. Without such sources, there is no way to validate any claims of notability or to add any sort of real-world context that isn't original research. Specifically, there is no way to merely cleanup the article so it passes policy. If I thought such sources existed, I wouldn't have AFDed it. I checked Google web search with no success. Additionally, Google books, Google news, and Google scholar all returned zero hits. You're right, the "Google test" isn't the most compelling argument, but your comment also includes a few arguments to avoid; WP:EFFORT, WP:BHTT, and WP:PROBLEM. Also, the article you mentioned on the Vorkosigan Saga is a poor example as it itself is almost entirely plot summary and needs some serious trimming and the addition of real-world content. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  You are not wrong. And I suppose....My greatest argument is really with Wikipedia policy, as opposed to this being AFD under Wikipedia policy. I still say KEEP but I am quickly losing interest in editing wikipedia beyond minor things. IT's too much effort to make sure everything added is legit, especially when you get emotionally attached to the things you add. Does Wikipedia keep an archive of old deleted pages so that this info is not lost? Also, where do I go to argue Wikipedia policy? Dachande (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  Wikipedia doesn't keep archives in the sense that you are asking, but admins can restore deleted content and may do so for it to be moved elsewhere. Don't quote me on that - I'm not admin and don't know all the rules.

  The Village Pump is a good starting place to discuss policy. You could just check the talk page of the policy in question too. In fact, WP:FICT is currently under major discussion.

  Perhaps The Annex would be a wiki you could check out for content that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I don't know the specifics, but I believe it was created for situations like this. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  Thank you. I am not trying to be unreasonable and I admit a personal bias to information I helped compile. When I get a chance I may go to the village pump and debate this one. I don't think well thought out, non-BS article like this one detract from wikipedia and actually I think they help it, perhaps not rival encyclopedia britannica or whatever, but the first place I turn to for random information is wikipedia, because I know someone like me probably wrote an article on it. So, based on my opinions of Wikipedia, I still say Keep but within the current guidelines of WIkipedia, I cannot actually argue against your point. Deletion is just so destructive, I would personally rather err on the side of keeping than deleting. Dachande (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - there are no reliable sources to indicate that this is separately notable from the Vorkosigan Saga. And given the lack of these sources, I see no way for the article to be improved and comply with policy.-- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Would this content be appropriate under all relevant wikipolicies for inclusion on the Vorkosigan Saga page? (regardless of your opinion of the quality of that page) I think so. It got broken out because the main page, the only one that we'd probably source correctly got really long, and I know that wikipolicy is to keep articles to a certain length. Would it be more appropriate to have a page of similar length to Vorkosigan Saga that contains content from the novels like this in one place and that way it'd be easier to source, assuming a few references exist out there? This way there aren't say 20 short articles out there that might or might not be in violation of wikipolicy, but only one longer one with subsections? I feel like completely getting rid of all this information is counter to the idea of having and online edtiable repository of knowledge. Besides, wouldn't it be better to put up a few templates to alert readers to the potentially unreliable nature of the information, and then let time (wiki-effort) verify it? I know wikipedia hates this argument but there aren't limits on space, so its not hurting anything to leave it up unless it is stated in a way that makes it sounds like verified fact or more important than it is. Anyway, I just wanted to try one last time. Dachande (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Just a follow up. This article doesn't break WP:5P, which appears to be the biggest criteria for keeping an article.

1. It is verifiable. All the info comes from the series, I think.
2. It is not point of view. No judgement is made as to the value of the Vor system
3. To the best of my knowledge there is no copyright issue with the pages (free content.)
4. I think we are all being rather civil here. No personal attacks. Very good discussion and disagreement actually.
5. NO FIRM RULES. A good idea is a good idea. Reading the very page you cited about plot summaries indicates that Wikipedia does not have hard and fast rules. Therefore, I think including this information is good idea on the grounds of it being potentially useful. maybe a fifth grader needs to do a complicated book report. Also in response to plot summarization, I would say that this article summarizes plot elements but is NOT a plot summary, would you agree? to me, the point of plot summarization policy is to avoid heavily abridged versions of the story being posted. (The 1-2 paragrpah blurbs on the Vorkosigan Saga page super summarize and so I guess their fine. This page collects one element of the entire series, and lists all of the admittedly in universe detail about it. I admit, I would love a world reknowned historian to write a thesis on a comparison of real life feudalism to the Vor but just because they haven't gotten around to it doesn't make this information bad, faithless, useless, or incorrect.

I am going to have to reaffirm KEEP after re-reading certain wikipolicies. But this is a concensus let's keep this thing going. Thank you.Dachande (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but WP:ENC is more than just WP:V. It explicitly includes WP:NOT, and notability guidelines (like WP:FICT) are natural extensions of the core policies it details. Doctorfluffy (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you should nitpick if it helps arguments and helps your case. Anyway, from what i've seen, that's the only one it breaks, and it breaks it softly. I would not argue against a tag for the page somehting like "The real world notability of this subject is in question. Please help wikipedia {expand/verify/source} it." I think that for something that barely breaks/bends one rule, but could potentially be relevant, should not be deleted. Are you deadset on deleting this page or can we tag it for improvement? I doubt this is anywhere near notability for FA or even GA status but maybe someone will be able to find something to improve it. Dachande (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• keep The notion of the Vor is discussed in a number of sources independent of the Bujold. I don't have many off the top of my head, but one examples is [1]. This is also relevant content from Bujold's official website [2]. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  The first source is about the author and the series, not about the fictional caste system specifically. The second is just a compilation of interviews with the author, which isn't independent of the subject, and again does not specifically focus on the subject of this AFD. Neither satisfies WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The first source discusses the system although I agree that it doesn't focus on them. The second one includes material that alllows us to source much of the material in the article without OR (which is one of the main motivating reasons behind FICT). I am trying to find more sourcing. Unfortunately, I only saw this AfD today so am doing what I can. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am very interested in these independent sources if you can remember them JoshuaZ. Please see if you can round them up. I don't know of any and finding them would actually help the case for keep a lot. I still say Keep without them just because they might exist and could be found eventually. Getting rid of the whole article is really destructive. But I digress and begin to repeat. See if you can locate those independent sources commenting on the Vor. Thanks! Dachande (talk) 01:23, 12 February 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.