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 without consensus. Some improvement has been made for WP:RS per WP:HEY, but notability is not yet clearly established. Note that I am not a fan of the series, so I take no stance on this AfD's merits. Bearian 19:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eidelon[edit]

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

Fancruft about a fictional race, with lots of plot summary but without sources demonstrating notability. Gavin Collins 08:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & fantasy deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars. No non-trivial third-party coverage provided, and I doubt it exists. Percy Snoodle 08:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep and Close(as bad faith nom). See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins. The nominator is under an RfC for forcing other editors (specifically RPG-inclined ones) to fix articles that he deems as unqualified for WP via AfD. Last time I check contributors are not under the authority of deletionists--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gavin.collins has tricked you into defending a extremely weak article, it is one of only two articles he nominated today. By accusing him of bad faith here you have reduced the impact of claiming bad faith in future AfD debates. Unwise. SolidPlaid 00:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. Now since when did gaming the system became the norm. I believe AfD is not Cleanup. Per Chunky Rice tricking people into doing what you want is bad faith.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Amusingly enough, if you're right and it's a "trick" nomination, that would still be bad faith. As far as I'm concerned, though, both the nominators and the "speedy close/keep" group are being a bit overzealous. Seems like a good merge candidate to me. -Chunky Rice 00:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. Gavin.collins takes some care to avoid the obvious. For example, he gamed PC78 into the "overzealous" statement below by talking completely reasonably. No outsider reading that discussion would say this nomination was in bad faith. If Gavin.collins' opposition was smarter, they would have let this one slide. SolidPlaid 00:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• An interesting interpretation of events, especially since several other users have concluded that this nomination is in bad faith. I can think for myself thank you very much, and haven't been "gamed" into doing anything; I'm just sorely dissapointed by the attitude of the nominator. PC78 02:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is the lack of notability. Why haven't admins closed this AfD if it is in bad faith? SolidPlaid 02:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why don't you ask them? I'm not interested in your second-guesses. The nominator fails to make a case for the non-notabilty of the subject (which may or may not be the case), and you haven't offered anything yourself besides an inconclusive google search. PC78 02:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I searched assiduously. There are no citations on the internet. I reached the end of the internet looking. This is not inconclusive, it is conclusive: no internet citations for notability of this topic exist. Period. SolidPlaid 03:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what that proves other than that there aren't any internet sources. The internet is not the be all, end all of reliable sources. In fact, it's not even close. It's the most convenient for sure, but that's about it. -Chunky Rice 04:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close as bad faith nom. I was in the process of discussing this article on the nominators talk page, and suggested the possibility of either merging/redirecting to Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars or maybe even adding one or two sources that I may have access to (the subject receives some coverage in this book, and possibly this one too). But he seems to have rejected these suggestions out of hand and without reason, and heck, I didn't even know our discussion was over until I saw this AfD. The nominator never gave me a chance.
  In addition, I also pointed out that WP:FICTION advocates deletion only as a last resort to other options (such as merge or transwiki), so given that alternatives to deletion were put forward this AfD seems to show a blatant disregard for the very guideline cited in the nomination. AfD is not a place to demand that articles be cleaned up or deleted. PC78 13:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We have had a discussion already on your talk page. I demanded nothing; I simply asked you when you were going to carry out the merger after you remomved the prod template. Note that you also have lots of time to userfy this article if you want. I see no evidence of bad faith; on the contrary, I have communicated my concerns about this article to you clear and open fashion. --Gavin Collins 07:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep I agree that this is a bad faith nomination. The AfD process isn't a bludgeon to be used to force cleanup of an article in a timely manner. Wikipedia is not on a timeline. Rray 15:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Something being fictional is not grounds for deletion, look at Sherlock Holmes, Vulcan, or kryptonite. Lack of sources is not grounds for deletion, either, it merely shows the article needs improvement. Edward321 23:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, has a blank entry on Farscape-1, the Farscape encyclopedia, demonstrating serious lack of interest. I can't find any good citations elsewhere, sorry. SolidPlaid 00:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only 228 ghits, many on other topics. And transwiki away, please. SolidPlaid 00:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "eidelon" OR "eidolon" farscape gets 9970 ghits. PC78 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eidelon is not Eidolon, I'm afraid. Let me know when you find a source demonstrating notability from the folks who misspelled it. SolidPlaid 02:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A common misspelling is a valid search term. And I've already named a source above. As f or the website you mentioned above, it seems to have quite a number of blanks, which proves nothing except perhaps a lack of interest in that particular website. Farscape Wiki does have an entry for Eidelon, so in this case a transwiki won't be necessary. But there still remains the perfectly valid option of a merge/redirect. PC78 02:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really. It's about 204. [1]. But that's not particularly low and the number of ghits isn't relevant for notability, anyway-Chunky Rice 02:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars per Percy Snoodle. 100% in-universe article. Clarityfiend 03:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to farscapewiki--Victor falk 05:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - PC78 makes a very good point. The current WP:FICT was made as a mergist effort, to emphasize the retention of information in one form or another. Deletion as a last and unusual resort was a pivotal point. Here, the nominator was presented with other options and rejected them. --Kizor 12:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be a shame if this absolutely non-notable article survived due to a battle being fought against an editor. SolidPlaid 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I cannot endorse a deletion proposal that comes immediately after an editor asked time to edit the article ("I'll deal with it when I get the chance. There's no timetable to work to here, and since pretty much all of Wikipedia's Farscape-related content is equally problematic, we're obviously looking at a mammoth cleanup task that isn't going to get done overnight" etc.; see here); in the uncertainty, I trust the editor knowledgeable on the subject and who has already mentioned two relevant books. Goochelaar 21:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Something being fictional is not grounds for deletion. Lack of sources is ground for requesting improvements, not for nominating for deletion in a hurry. --Raistlin 21:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I searched assiduously. There are no citations on the internet. I reached the end of the internet looking. No internet citations for notability of this topic exist. Article cannot be improved. Period. SolidPlaid 03:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless, of course, we use non-internet sources. It's a shocking idea, I know. -Chunky Rice 04:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's delete the article until the time such sources emerge. SolidPlaid 19:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that a merger or at least redirect would be more appropriate. Regardless, I was merely responding to your assertion that "Article cannot be improved. Period." based on the lack of internet sources. Which is just factually false. -Chunky Rice 19:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• From what I've gathered, the Wikipedia policy is that an article is guilty of non-notability until proven innocent. I went to a great deal of trouble to look for internet citations, which should have caught citations in books now that amazon and google are indexing books. So, I have shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this article is on a non-notable topic. But more importantly, I shouldn't have to do that. The article should be deleted now, until sources appear. That is what I meant by "period". SolidPlaid 19:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, this isn't a criminal court and talk about guilt and innocence is really silly. Second, the fact is that the vast marjoity of books are not scanned and indexed and therefore will not turn up on an internet search. But I'm glad you mentioned it, because I did turn up this collection of essays [2], which devotes some space to the article subject. Regardless, why are you so set on deletion. What's wrong with redirecting or merging the content? -Chunky Rice 20:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, you take things too literally. The source you found is a mere passing mention, does nothing to establish notability. Please, put all the sources you find on the Eidelon page, not here. It's disingenuous. SolidPlaid 20:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Passing mention?

"The Eidolons are the last of a race of Peacemakers, hunted to near extinction, and the name “Eidolon” itself – though not mentioned in the course of the show – is the term for an enlightened spirit or benevolent ghost, one who comes back to aid the living. An apt name, for their power, aided by their inner sight, was once to sense others’ needs and desires and foster reason with their minds, so that all could come to agreement without need for war.

The faces of the Eidolons are almost masks themselves, initially appearing the same as a human’s or Sebacean’s except for where the face is divided by raised seams that come to a star in the center of the forehead. When they will it, however, they can open up their faces in the exact same manner as a sacred Haida or Wkakiutl transformation mask, one face splitting apart to reveal another beneath. With the Eidolons, the hidden face is the mystic third eye of Eastern legend, flanked by two smaller eyes on either side, so as not to be quite so obvious, questing about…"

That's one small excerpt. There's more where that came from. I think you need to be a little more careful about your accusations of bad faith. I'm putting it here because it's relevant to the discussion. This is a non-trivial mention by a reliable source independent of the subject. How is that not relevant to notability? I can't really use this for the article because only selected pages are available on the internet. Somebody with full access to the source material should be the one to do it. Please take note that notability is based on whether or not sources exist, not whether or not they are included in the article. Now this one source probably isn't enough to establish notability, but it certainly goes to show that the article can be improved, despite your prior assertion. -Chunky Rice 21:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please put it on the actual page. Don't you see; the reason that articles are nominated for deletion is because there are no sources available to non-specialists. I want more where that came from. SolidPlaid 21:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the link you provided doesn't link to the material quoted above. SolidPlaid 21:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the internet only has selected pages from the essay/book. I could add it in as a reference (I have), but without the entire essay, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to use it to add anything to the article. I don't know if the page after that goes on to say something that contradicts the information I have or whatever. The text I quote is on page 212 of the essay titled "Masks of Transformation." Just scroll up a bit in the link provided. -Chunky Rice 21:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Percy above. If sources are located later (as suggested above), then the article can be recovered and properly sourced. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per conversation linked by Goochelaar. Allow article to be cleaned up if possible and redirected if not.--Cube lurker 19:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. All storm and fury; none of these editors has lifted a finger to put citations showing notability on the page itself. SolidPlaid 21:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Props to Chunky Rice for his work on placing some sourcing. SolidPlaid 03:53, 14 October 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.