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 Keep. CitiCat ^♫ 03:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dyson Aliens[edit]

Dyson Aliens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is plot summary from the books. There is no assertion of real-world notability, and the lack of reliable third-party sources makes it impossible for the article to pass WP:WAF. EEMeltonIV 12:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give examples of articles that do pass WAF ? I.e. those that assert real-world notability and do not lack 3rd party sources. I just want to see what's expected of the fiction article in that department. Thanks. Alex Pankratov 13:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palpatine, Jabba the Hutt, and Padme Amidala are featured articles. --EEMeltonIV 13:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any examples that are not StarWars, StarTrek or Tolkien ? Anything less mainstream/pop-culture, but still of a good (science) fiction quality ? I'd like to see you address the points that someone raised on article's talk page. Please take time to respond in detail, because we are looking at deleting quality content and merely quoting a policy does not suffice. Policies are designed to be somewhat ambiguous and flexible. Alex Pankratov 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. After all, more-obscure corners of sci-fi (or any genre) have difficulty meeting Wikipedia's general notability standards and the notability-in-fiction guidelines. --EEMeltonIV 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be because angry editors like yourself keep ripping their articles off, preventing them to grow and find some new public? These guidelines, interpreted your fundamentalist way, are bullshit, no more, no less. 78.113.82.16 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to the AfD summary by EEMeltonIV this article lacks "reliable third-party sources" but in the examples shown above of featured articles the VAST majority of sources for those articles are actually first party sources, DVDs, novels, companion articles, blogs owned and administered by the copyright holder(s) and fans... that makes me wonder why those sources are more valid than in-universe sources for thsi article. Perhaps if someone could explain the double-standard on sourcing we could avoid more situations like this. I'm being very serious, if there is specific policy on why some things can be self-sourced and others can't I'd like to be directed to it so that I can better understand the debate.--Torchwood Who? 06:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as article fails to demonstrate notability of these fictional characters per WP:FICTION. Extensive plot summary is not a substitute for verificable independent sources. --Gavin Collins 13:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
• Strong Keep, this is getting repetitive. EEMeltonIV has already purged substantial amount of relevant content from another related article, again citing WP policies whose applicability was questionable. I did not raise an issue at that time, but this AfD requests starts to push it. If WP:WAF is followed to the letter, we'll end up with just Superman, Darth Vader and Pokemon. The series of books in question is quite new (2-3 ? years old), but given the reviews and previous Hamilton's history, there's little doubt that the subject is notable. Alex Pankratov 15:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Notability is not inherited; the novel series deserve articles (although not just plot summary rehash and minutiae, which my deletions removed), but that doesn't mean the aliens, planets, characters, technologies, etc. that populate the series are themselves notable. --EEMeltonIV 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I cite, because I consider your argument to be invalid here : "Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes, however - this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums."
• And why not? How can you say that an extensive description of the aliens in that book is useless? It's obviously useful to me, and to other people as well, as it helps comprehend some part of the book that can seem partly obscure to the lambda reader. It may also bring people to get to know the novel itself. What would not be the case with an article that would consist only in : title/author/5 lines about the plot, which seem to be what you'd like it to become.

• • • Having reviewed the edit history of the guy who made the page, but does not post anymore, and other factors like the apparent credibility, and lack of persuasive argument for delete, I recommend 'keep and ask for references.JJJ999 08:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if I tell you that I don't freakin' care about Superman or Dr Bashir or Darth Vader's personality analysis? Would I therefore destroy those pages I don't care about?

I don't freakin' know who did put those stupid rules about notability, but YOU seem to NOT be able to understand that just about every rule must have exceptions. This one being a notable one. Period.

Ah, and, as I told before, on fr:wp, you would have been spotted and banned, with an attitude like this. Shame we don't share this same policy here.

78.113.82.16 17:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is useful" is not a compelling argument to retain or write an article. Additionally, per the writing-about-fiction and notability-in-fiction guidelines, Wikipedia takes an out-of-universe perspective that relates fictional material's real-world impact and coverage -- critical reviews, commentary, development information, etc. If no such information exists for the Dyson aliens -- if all we know about them is what they do in the story -- then they don't warrant an article and any more than a sentence or two in the article on the (highly notable) Hamilton books in which they appear. If someone out there has written some scholarly or critical commentary on them, then I'd welcome an article about the aliens.

I welcome any and all material on Wikipedia that discusses Superman's, Bashir's, Vader's, and other notable fictional characters' development and critical reaction, as cited to reliable third-party sources. I don't want Wikipedia, however, simply to rehash the comics'/series'/movies' plots; in-universe plot summary is what sister projects like Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia are for.

If you disagree with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take up your issues on the policies'/guidelines' talk pages. WP:FICT just went through a substantial revision based on editors' feedback. that I will do, but it's not the question here

As for being banned from the French Wikipedia: I doubt I'd be interested in contributing to a site that preemptively bans users who've never contributed to it, and who were banned because their edits to another project are cited to policy and guidelines. I am not going to lose le sleep over it. --EEMeltonIV 17:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The mention of fr:wp was pointless, and badly presented, it was just an example.

I don't disagree with WP rules, but with your rather extremist interpretation of them. This is not at all the same thing. ""It is useful" is not a compelling argument to retain or write an article" Who decides what is useful here? You? I gave a context : it is useful, for people to better know the saga, and have a better hindsight about the universe it describes. It can also inspire people in creating forks about this universe (like Bettancourt did with Zelazny's famous saga - dunno the name in english, sorry). There are plenty of arguments in favour of STRONG KEEP. And only your extremist "follow the rule" attitude against it. Rules are meant to be interpreted. My interpretation differs from yours, widely. When my goverment told me to stop listening to several rock or hip hop band, because their lyrics were against the law, I did not obey. Stupid extremist interpretations of rules (in any organization, nation, or group) lead to destruction. This is my opinion. Oh, and what IS your interest in this, can't you just leave this article alone? We, its editors, want to keep it, so let it alone, why do you care, anyway? Does this make you feel important, or whatever? Why can't you just let people alone? We want it kept, can't you understand that? If you don't like it, just go away, and stop readin' it !!! Or do you suffer from The wrong version syndrom ? 78.113.82.16 18:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to cite another user, from another AFD discussion, if he may accept my use of his very sensible arguments :

I am yet to see a good argument for the deletion of mainstream "fancraft" articles from this wiki. People often claim that it is not notable, and that it needs to be cited. Rubbish. Wikipedia is written by experts in their own field, who better to fight over the exact speed of warp 5.6 then a bunch of fanatics? People also claim that we should trans-wiki it to another wiki. People don't search other wikis, they search wikipedia - because it is supposed to be the sum of ALL human knowledge - and fiction is part of that knowledge. Fosnez 10:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.113.82.16 (talk • contribs)

• Well, this user's premise that Wikipedia "is supposed to be the sum of ALL human knowledge" is off; per policy, Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information. And in that same section (since quotes have credence with you), policy in that section states that "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." --EEMeltonIV 23:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You like to cite laws, do you? As I said on Moya AFD page : I remind you that WP policies are made by its users, as WP would be nothing without them. WP is not a democracy, Nor a dictatorship. But, that's it, go on, delete the entire damn encyclopedia, I've had enough of all of your type. A single question, before I leave : If, say, in a year or two, or maybe tomorrow or next month, Wikipedia decides to change its policy in order to endorse the creation of plot summaries (which are useful, for example to students and pupils to help them in class - i.e. if they study a book in class), in that case, what would you do? Would you undelete all the articles you did delete? Will you stop harrassing us goodwilling small editors? Or will you continue to play God and consider these new policies don't concern you? I have my idea on that. 160.92.7.69 05:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia, as I like to believe in my naive way, belongs to its users, not the contrary.[reply]

• I find it scandalous that some angry and (maybe) frustrated editor decides ON HIS OWN what is good or not on a page like this one. This has gone far from simple vandalism, it's an organised and voluntary attemps to destroy information of value. There is more than Starwars/trek in the Sci-Fi universe, especially when the book the article is about is a BESTSELLER, which, If I may be so bold, seems to mean a great deal of people were impacted by it in the real world. I say again, I am terribly horrified when I see how much informative data this ONE editor simply erased. I'd say we need an admin to come and see the extent of the damage. I am not familiar with en:wp, but I assure you this would not have gone this way on fr:wp (where I come from) 160.92.7.69 15:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Anonymous editors' input is just as welcome as anyone else's. --EEMeltonIV 15:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back into the main article. It can be edited from there. MarkBul 15:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Frankly, I see no third party sources for the notability of any of this. I'm sure there are, but references from them it would put the material into perspective. The amount of appropriate detail depends on the notability of the works. DGG (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag as needing third party references. Not adhering to WP:WAF is a cleanup issue, not a deletion one. This article is about a major concept of a clearly notable work of fiction, which according to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) may be separated out into a separate article from the main work ("To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons)."). JulesH 12:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - So where is the information on these aliens' real-world notability? Where is even an un-referenced assertion of these aliens' notability? --EEMeltonIV 14:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You miss the point of the quoted notability guideline for fiction. This article describes a major plot point from undoubtedly notable books. It exists as a sub-article to provide additional explanation about the subject that shouldn't be included inline in the main article for stylistic reasons. The context it provides for the main article is necessary for a full understanding of the subject. Its notability is therefore supported by the notability of the books, which is established in the main article. JulesH 06:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This article describes a major plot point -- See WP:PLOT. All this article does is summarize the antagonists. Again, no real-world notability. "A full understanding of the subject" at Wikipedia does not mean simply regurgitating the story, which this article does. --EEMeltonIV 16:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (for now) and Source I'm not so concerned about the real-world notability after reading the comments by JulesH, but I would like to see references cited for a lot of the info in this article. Page numbers in the books where they're featured etc. The sad thing is that we can't just take an editor's word on the information otherwise we'd have no way to distinguish vandalism from good edits. I'd like to see the article kept and referenced. If it doesn't improve in the future I'd have to vote delete.--Torchwood Who? 17:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge and redirect back into Commonwealth Saga. There's no reason to have a separate article on this. We already have had articles on Alamo Avengers and other details from these books. It's not necessary; the text and the author are hardly notable. 206.230.62.2 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it Hamilton the author who's "hardly notable" ? Alex Pankratov 19:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• yes. 206.230.62.2 17:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then that's a very strange judgement about somebody who has been described as "Britain's Best Selling SF Writer" (see covers of books in question). JulesH 06:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional evidence of Hamilton's notability: [1] [2] [3] JulesH 06:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Evidence of the commonwealth saga's notability: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Note that many of these book reviews directly discuss the subject of the article in question. JulesH 06:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, not a single one of these is from a reliable source. We dont prove notability of books from blog postings and blurbs. I agree though that he and his books are notable. Nobody is proposing to delete them. DGG (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It seems rather self-evident to me that this is a cleanup issue, rather than a deletion issue. -Toptomcat 01:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.