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. The raw vote total is 7-3 Delete, with one Merge. That's a point against keeping the article. The Keep arguments are not really very strong. It's a pretty good article, but it does seem to drift into Original Research territory, and no convincing proof that the topic is not a low-notability neologism is offered. Herostratus 18:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryaniverse[edit]

The only part of it which is not blatant original research is the list of Tom Clancy novels and is redundant with the author article. The term itself does not seem all that notable. Google finds 43 unique hits. Most of them are some copy of the wikipedia article and the rest come from forums or blog comments. (see Google search without the first four words of the article)[1]. Pascal.Tesson 07:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is hyper fancruft, more suitable for a blog or fansite.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, speculative, opinion, unreferenced (most likely unreferencable) fancruft --Mnem eson 10:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for OR, POV, unsourced fancruft. Doczilla 21:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The term "Ryanverse" (not Ryaniverse) is, if I am not mistaken, even written on the back of one of Tom Clancy's books (The Teeth of the Tiger, if I'm not mistaken). This term is used to describe Clancy books that involve Jack Ryan. Also note this page here from one of the premier sites dealing with Tom Clancy. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that it may be used in the past, possibly invented by a clever blogger or even Clancy's people. Regardless, it remains a neologism that is not supported by any reliable sources nor referenced in any scholarly works. It fails half a dozen alphabet soup guidelines by a country mile. Delete - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so it's a typo of a neologism. But let's assume that the page was under the correct name "Ryanverse". Now how notable is that neologism? Google comes up with 126 unique relevant hits. That's better than the dismal results for Ryaniverse but it's still unacceptably low imho, especially since few if any can be considered as reliable sources. Now of course Google searches don't mean much but it's interesting to compare this with the 259 000 hits you get for "Jack Ryan" + clancy. This strongly indicates that the term "Ryanverse" hasn't caught on, despite being pushed, as Sharkface seems to suggests, by Clancy's editors. All this notwithstanding, the article is still a combination of original research and material already extensively covered in Jack Ryan or Tom Clancy. Pascal.Tesson 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharkface's comment, if true, only proves that the term exists. Not that it is notable or, furthermore, that it has been written about in multiple non-trivial sources that discuss the word itself, per the guidelines on articles about neologisms.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic fancruft. Eusebeus 13:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I discovered this item for the first time today and found it interesting. Introductory elements could possibly be rewritten. --ScMeGr 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It's interesting" is not a qualification for inclusion. Even if introductory elements could be added, it would undoubtedly be original research (i.e. what some editors think about the Ryanverse) because there are, as yet, no sources offered. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge on the condition that the term does actually occur on the back of a Tom Clancy novel, as claimed. Otherwise, delete. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is all unsourced. So what part of it should be merged (and to where?) -maclean 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above "it's a typo of a neologism". --maclean 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plent of other fictional universes in Wikipedia. This is just as legitimate as the others. The character "Jack Ryan" is a famous literary figure and so are his adventures. Therefore, the article has significance. -- Crevaner 14:53, 19 January 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.