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 delete, for all articles. The core delete argument is that there are "no third-party indications of notability" and that has not really been challenged. One editor suggests keeping GG IV, but did not provide evidence of coverage in secondary sources, which is still required even for printed books. If such coverage actually exists, I'd be willing to userfy that article. If any of these works eventually are covered in reliable sources, recreating them could be reconsidered.

I'm not bothering to create redirects after deleting, and will leave that matter up to editorial discretion as to whether it's helpful to do that.

Also to Tkech, sorry if this was a disheartening experience for you, and don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page if your have further questions about how this process unfolded. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grantville Gazette IV[edit]

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grantville Gazette VIII, I am listing the following Grantville Gazettes for deletion. I am only focusing on the ones are available online only and without any print version, as that may be significant. Again no third-party indications of notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and redirect to The Grantville Gazettes. Ray^Talk 21:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per Ricky; good work. Things are looking up. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 03:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 03:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per nom, most of them have C&P content about the Gazettes as a whole which can be found on the main Gazette page and the ones that are more than just a chapter list are borderline copyvio in detail. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to point out Grantville Gazette IV is available in hardcover. Do you still wish to delete that as well even though you are only focusing on the online versions? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep it here. I wanted to list I, II, and III as well, but if there doesn't seem to be anyone caring about the publication history, that'll clear that concern up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grantville Gazette 76.66.202.123 (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all EXCEPT IV - I think the series is notable enough that the Gazettes that are actually published can keep their own articles. There is no doubt that IV needs some work done to it, starting with deleting the sections on the series and the Gazette's in general, but that is minor. Also I was able to find third party sources for Grantville Gazette III and there may be more for the other published ones. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean it up. (I will bold some of my remarks, not to be taken as shouting, simply to emphasize some points.) I am not sure if it's wikipedia policy to discriminate against electronic editions of books. Electronic books ARE the coming thing, it's not something to be discounted or ignored. They are not less legitimate than hardcopy books. People are paying $6.00 a book for these, just like in the stores. I see these just like any other book article that is included in wikipedia, and I've seen hundreds. A story collection article typically lists each story and the author, and possibly a short summary. As far as notability, the Grantville Gazettes are a unique type of literature that hasn't really been done before: a collaborative universe, participation of hundreds of people online, interweaving of storylines between the novels and short stories, all written by different authors, and inclusion of factual articles about transplanting current technology back in time ... I believe these things make the e-books "notable".

I agree that there is some repetitive stuff in the individual gazette articles that can be removed. In the past I have only hesitated to scrub these clean because I wasn't sure if someone would feel strongly about me gutting them. I avoid turf wars at all costs. But if they are inactive enough for you all to be tossing them out left and right, I guess nobody will mind if I fix them.

In the meantime, I am extremely disappointed that 10+ 1632 articles have already been rammed through the deletion process with only a week's time allowed for voting. I was only notified about one of the votes, and several were already closed when I got the message. These seem to have been started on 24 July and closed on 1 August. Some have been started later and closed in the last few days. Is this a fair consideration? Don't know about you, but I don't log in here every day. Is that required in order to be heard? :-(

Already, the 1632 writers article was erroneously voted to be merged into the 1632(novel) article. Unfortunately, the novel was written by just one person - Eric Flint. The dozens of people formerly listed in the now-defunct 1632 writers article produced stories for 20+ ebooks in The Grantville Gazettes series. That's where they should go. Which will make the Gazettes far too long.

The 1632 plot threads article was also erroneously voted to be merged into the 1632(novel) article. Again, unfortunately, this particular novel touches on only one major plot thread, not ALL the plot threads. They apply to the entire 1632 series, both the novels and the gazettes. A fellow wikipedian has kindly moved them to the right place.

The first box at the top of the 1632 series page says:

"This article may be too long to comfortably read and navigate. Please consider splitting content
into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject."

Is it helpful for us to be clobbering separate articles, if the main series article where they should be going is already too long and separate articles are recommended?! Lol!

Can someone tell me where to find other deletion nominations for other 1632/Grantville subjects, aside from the Gazettes listed above? I get the feeling that others may close before I find out about them. -.- I'd also like to know where to find the deleted article text, I know it must be in here somewhere.

I heartily agree that a lot of pruning is needed for this group of articles. While some deletions are necessary, I do not believe the right articles are being selected, and yet it's too late for me to do anything about it because they seems to have been rammed through. I am concerned that decisions are being made in the dark, by people who are possibly not familiar enough with the series to make logical choices nor evaluate what's "notable," without giving other wikipedians a chance to speak. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkech (talk • contribs) 09:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles get listed for seven days. That's been policy for a while now (it used to be five), and keeping it around for random periods of time based on whether certain editors get around to them isn't feasible. I'm sorry that you haven't been able to see all the discussions going on but the templates have been the bigger concern. As to whether electronic versions are more or less legitimate or "the coming thing", the requirement is that there be independent third-party sources for the articles, and these do not have them. As to the length, the strategy would be to merge everything and remove the stuff that is totally inappropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we're most of the way through an eighth day ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkech: Well you caught my eye with “factual articles about transplanting current technology back in time” — don't worry, I'll not ask for a source on that.

re: the 1632 series being too long; ya. I cut 20kb out there quite easily and the next guy got 5 more. This whole walled garden was way over due for a serious pruning and progress was made. This is going to close as a <del>, too, leaving the books and the still way-overgrown lists of characters; historical and fictional, and a few Gazettes to still consider. And the historic characters are already covered in historical articles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had written my latest post before seeing yours - I seem to always get on just when someone else is around. If being published on paper makes a difference, please be advised that Grantville Gazette V is being released this month 11-25 Aug 2009 in hardcover. Citations (lol): http://www.simonandschuster.net/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=651310 and http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/f/eric-flint/grantville-gazette-volume-v.htm

I would personally rather see the character articles deleted and the book articles kept. The Grantville milieu has 3500 "uptime" person-characters available in the genealogical hierarchy created by Virginia DeMarce, based on the size of real-life town Mannington Virginia. (Tho obviously not all of these can be "notable".) I agree, historical figures are well-documented already - the fact that their actions differ in the alternate history can be more of a "major plot point" (such as King Gustav of Sweden not dying at Alta Veste, which has major ramifications). The lists of short stories in the books (plus a sentence or two on the plot setup) are what I want to preserve. With all of the junk pulled out, these would be manageable articles.

I lol'd about the factual articles. I drafted a reply but I guess it's off-topic for this discussion. :-P I *am* happy about the template deletions, they were impossible to work with. It sounds like the vote is complete in your mind already: "This is going to close as a <del>". It's not like I'm new to wikipedia, I just avoid stuff like this because it's usually not important enough to get into a turf war. But I am finding these deletions of more concern. Tkech (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3500 characters? No wonder there are so many links to anchors that don't exist on those pages. The historical list should go as duplicative of the real articles and the other one pared way back. We're not here to regurgitate the plot of this stuff; what's notable is what the real historical figures did and such. The Gazettes warrant mebbe the one article on them as a batch — and we have that The Grantville Gazettes; these are full of copyvios, too: see here. My comment about the close was based on the preponderance of the opinions above and the fact that the close of this discussion is already overdue. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, I disagree with what should be coming and going here. I'm in process of gutting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grantville_Gazette_IV (although I realize that it won't influence anyone at all, I wanted to show what I felt the articles should be like.) The point of listing the Gazette stories is that each plot event grows and develops and becomes interwoven with the others. The same thing that makes a fictional character article impossible to maintain is what makes the Gazette story lists entirely manageable. There are now twenty-four volumes of the Grantville Gazette, and cross-referencing these back through the characters would be ... um, really hard. In the case of Grantville, I believe it's not the characters themselves that are important, but how they interact with the 1632 environment. I dunno, I guess I'm just spitting in the wind here. I wish I could explain this better. I realize that at this point I'm just perceived as some idiot who "just doesn't understand how wikipedia works". I know it's not allowed to point at dozens of other anthology articles on wikipedia that list the stories in them. I realize that none of you are required to have read the series, nor understand what is involved (such as the number of potential fictional characters I cited above, or any of the complexities involved in the decisions being made from an ivory tower.) I can claim that I understand what 'notable' means on wikipedia till I'm blue in the face, and am resigned that I'll get no more than a pat on the head ("now don't you worry your pretty little head about it.") It's quite discouraging. Tkech (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2009 (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.