Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:26, 4 October 2013

Sharlin Class Warcruiser

Sharlin Class Warcruiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not establish notability independent of Babylon 5 through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 11:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 11:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete, or as a last resort, merge to List of Babylon 5 starships along with all those other entries in the Babylon 5 template. I'm going to use the f-word here, so close your eyes if you're easily offended: fancruft. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • We did make a List of locations in Babylon 5 a few years back. Doing the same thing to the majority of the ship articles is something I proposed as far back as 2009. Anyone want to help merge 'em? Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I added two independent reliable sources (printed works in my possession that I've used to source B5 fictional topics before) that establish that this class of ship, as a fictional element, was commented upon by real world sources. More can be added as needed, but I'm putting the vote in now that I've demonstrated that adequate sources exist and can be added as needed. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Do they actually discuss anything pertaining to the real world, or is it just a collection of fictional details in a detailed format? If they can satisfy the real world information requirement, I can at least withdraw this for now so that a proper merge can be discussed on how to best handle the details without going overboard with plot like in these articles. TTN (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • They discuss the fictional elements in the context of the larger story, but as you can tell from the book titles, the books are focused on Babylon 5 itself. These and other books discuss the real-world inspiration for B5, and reaction to it, but are substantially descriptive, with analysis a smaller portion of their content. I don't know if that satisfies your definition of real world impact or not, but it certainly does mine. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
    • If they cannot produce a real world perspective on the topic, it becomes impossible to to meet either WP:WAF or WP:NOTPLOT. If the resources do not give details on the respective fictional elements that can meet those, they cannot be said to actually cover them. Such novels are only covering the series itself, of which the plot elements are only a part, and cannot be said to establish notability for them, else every single element from every single fictional series with a guidebook is notable. If they can provide a general discussion of the overall design process of creating all the ships, there could be potential in a list article. If they don't give a ship-by-ship account, there is no way separate articles can be kept according to WAF and NOTPLOT barring one or two randomly having actual sources available. TTN (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I didn't actually expect that meeting the GNG--non-trivial coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources--would be enough to persuade you to withdraw this. Suffice it to say that I find your additional, non-policy-based requirements uncompelling. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Last time I checked, NOT is a policy, and it specifically says to follow WAF for fiction-related articles. If the articles can only be summaries, they cannot exist independently of the main work. Maybe you feel every last fictional element of every series deserves coverage, but the policy-based argument is that they cannot exist without real world coverage, not simply trivial mentions in a few books that are reliable sources in other aspects. In the same sense, would you say a few news stories about a notable football player buying his mother a house makes it reasonable to create an article on the otherwise unnoteworthy mother? The story is technically covering the mother even though she only warrants coverage in the player's biography. TTN (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Your example is inapt on a couple of fronts: BLPs are not the same as fictional elements, and real world events that have context in relation to other real-world events are not the same as fictional elements, which may evolve over time as more fictional content is created, but are essentially static within the fictional universe--Han shot first notwithstanding. Having said that, were such an article on a non-notable event made, the plain expectation of WP:ATD is to merge it into an appropriate article, such as the football player's. Finally, a policy cannot incorporate by reference a content guideline, because a content guideline does not have the established status that a policy does. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
            • I think you missed the point there. When you have a minor topic, real or fictional, it cannot stand without the appropriate weight. You can toss around "reliable sources", but the article clearly needs to be removed if it cannot act as its own topic. That which you have provided is the exact same as a couple of mentions of an unimportant family member of a notable figure in a few news stories. NOT lists WAF as a resource, and it is currently a stable version. That means it, a policy, supports my viewpoint much more than yours. TTN (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
              • It can and does' act as its own topic. Most fictional elements articles do so. They exist within the context of the fictional world, and make reference to it, because if all the notable fictional elements were crammed into one topic, it would be large, unwieldy, and likely violate WP:SIZE, your personal opinions about whether that is a good thing notwithstanding. WP:SS describes how such topics should be broken out at some length. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
                • That makes absolutely no sense, and you should be able to tell that is not a common practice by looking at any well-managed series of articles. There is nothing that says we have to document each and every detail, so properly done lists are never overcrowded. The only ones that need to be split are those with so many entries that it would not be possible to have a small article even if they were down to a sentence per entry (Marvel character, Pokemon, ect). Describing fictional elements without real world relevance is to allow people to better understand the plot summaries without overcrowding them. That requires a balance between brevity and detail to best describe a topic without giving them too much WP:WEIGHT. Characters and elements do not need eight paragraphs of background info, but a basic conveyance of "what makes the character the character" and "what importance the element has to the plot." TTN (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The interpretation of NOT with respect to fixction is much disputed, to the extent that there has never been able to get any single interpretation of it adopted, as for any position, there are always substantial objections. I interpret it, and I think the intended meaning, is that our coverage of any work of fiction should not be limited only to plot. Obviously, for major fiction where we need to split articles to deal with the amount of material, some of these will necessarily deal mainly or wholly with their role in the plot, as other of the detailed articles will deal with other aspects. It's the coverage as a whole that counts. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• I get that you're an inclusionist, but do you really have to try and act as if the policies, guidelines, and general consensus on fiction-related articles are not against these types of articles? It is quite obvious given all the trends that plot only articles cannot stay. Only low traffic areas and those with focused groups of fans have actually kept these kinds of articles around. All the more active ones have paired them down to the most prevalent information and improved the rest. The guidelines and policies are not set in stone, but NOT, WAF, guidelines of various projects, and such are all quite clear on the topic as of this point. TTN (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Jclemens has added multiple independent sources for the article. I agree with DGG that WP:NOT#PLOT is contentious and has been for a long time. I interpret the policy as saying that the article should not be mostly devoted to the plot and that is true of this article. Plot does not include characterization, setting, language, criticsm, etc. Even were the article plot-heavy, given reliable sources, reducing over-emphasis on plot would be a matter of editing or possibly merging and would be a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, a policy that specifically recommends against deletion if possible. --Mark viking (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. The major fictional elements of major fictions are best treated in separate articles, to keep the material from getting lost. The sources seem now sufficient to justify it. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

note: I struck the second !vote--you only get one per discussion. --Mark viking (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 18:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Why was this relisted again? Only one person agreed with the nominator, and that !vote predates the addition of independent reliable sources, vs. three who have evaluated the sources and agreed that they were sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Seems reasonable, and on par with similiar articles Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

  "reasonable" is not a policy-based argument, nor is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete, the article fails to establish the topic's notability per WP:GNG, which requires "significant coverage (and not trivial mentions) from reliable independent sources". The new sources added to the article sure are reliable and independent, but do not go beyond short, trivial mentions of the topic within plot summaries and do not provide significant coverage based on out-of-universe information such as origin, development, influence or reception, without which it is impossible to build an encyclopedic article that goes beyond a mere plot summary, per WP:NOTPLOT. Some of the keep !votes are entirely based on a rejection of the WP:NOTPLOT policy and as such should be discarded, per WP:AFDFORMAT, AfD isn't the place to debate policy but to check whether articles meet policy or not.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)
• AfD debates
• Relisted AfD debates