Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vorkosigan Saga Inconsistencies

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge but there is no real agreement as to where to merge this. Therefore I will keep the article as it is and tag it as a merge-candidate. I was a bit at a loss as to how to count the votes here, but I cannot really see a consensus for an outright deletion. (4 delete, 2 merge, 1 move) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vorkosigan Saga Inconsistencies

Original Research BirgitteSB 15:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. At least it is not fancruft, but it should more properly belong to a Bujold fanalysis page. Eldereft 18:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Much of this is accurate, or at least arguable. indeed I have made several of these points on rec.arts.sf.Written and on the "LordV" yahoo mailing list in the past. But unless sourced, this is or at least appears to be original research. Reluctant Delete unless source info for the opnons expressed is provided. DES ^(talk) 19:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Being a scientist I'm inclined to treat physics arguments as self-evident, and not requiring external justification. Social and political commentary is of course a different matter, as is speculation about alternative interpretations. I will take another look at the content, and at least remove the non-physics sections. Djdaedalus 20:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It isn't a question of whether they are "self-evident" or not, IMO. Original analysis, even flawlessly correct original analysis of works of art is not approprioate on wikipedia. If you can point to such analyes elsewhere you can properly summarize them here, because they we are reporting what others think. Please re-read WP:NOR. DES ^(talk) 22:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:NOR is neither explicitly nor implicitly related to this. It covers the kinds of articles which might issue from, say, Archimedes Plutonium. If some kind of exegesis on a work of fiction is not to be allowed, there really is no room for most of the fiction-related content already present. Djdaedalus 00:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have to agree; this page simply is not original research. There is a huge body of such analysis out there, for just about any work of note in speculative fiction, and in particular for the Vorkosigan series. I don't disagree with the call to Merge into a more appropriate page, though. Georgewilliamherbert 02:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Vorkruft. Wikipedia is not ImpSec. Delete. DS 22:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Not Impsec, no. The Council of Counts, yes. Djdaedalus 00:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Miles Vorkosigan - Vorskysmith 09:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It was originally part of Vorkosigan Saga but became too long. Djdaedalus 12:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Anything wrong with moving it to Vorkosigan Saga/Inconsistencies, then? DS 17:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Works for me Djdaedalus 01:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
        • You might want to read Wikipedia:Subpages first. Mind you, i think stuff about fictional univeses (when kept) ought to be an expection to this policy, but it hasn't been made one yet. See Wikipedia talk:Subpages#Fictional Universes where I have just suggested such a policy change. DES ^(talk) 15:56, 5 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.