Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hispano-Japanese War: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:55, 18 July 2009 editDGG (talk \| contribs)316,874 edits →Hispano-Japanese War ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:13, 18 July 2009 edit undoJack Merridew (talk \| contribs)34,837 edits →Hispano-Japanese War: Delete all, +lulzNext edit →
Line 38:		Line 38:
	*'''Delete''' I had a fear that this would happen and in the past I tried to make some effort to consolidate but my heart was never into it. Parts of the World War I and II articles could be '''merged''' with the ] and ] articles, but the rest can be deleted. ] (]) 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)		*'''Delete''' I had a fear that this would happen and in the past I tried to make some effort to consolidate but my heart was never into it. Parts of the World War I and II articles could be '''merged''' with the ] and ] articles, but the rest can be deleted. ] (]) 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Delete''' or possibly merge. Redirects here are problematic, because of the possibility of confusion. If they are done, we need a clear revision of the MOS to permit adding (in the fiction series Harry Turtledove) to prevent confusion.-- even if there is no RW corresponding event.''']''' (]) 04:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)		*'''Delete''' or possibly merge. Redirects here are problematic, because of the possibility of confusion. If they are done, we need a clear revision of the MOS to permit adding (in the fiction series Harry Turtledove) to prevent confusion.-- even if there is no RW corresponding event.''']''' (]) 04:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
			* '''DELETE ALL''' and transwiki the editors behind these to Wikia. These ludicrous excuses for articles are excellent examples of why extensive coverage of mass-market pop-fiction is harmful. ] 07:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
			* <small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate should be included in a ].</small> <small>-- ] 07:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 07:13, 18 July 2009

Hispano-Japanese War

Also nominated:

These are all articles about plot elements and events from Harry Turtledove's Timeline-191 series. Misplaced Pages is not the Turtledove Wiki; more specifically WP:NOT#PLOT prohibits articles for plot only descriptions of works of fiction. In addition, WP:WAF establishes that articles about topics in fictional universes must be independently notable, as established by reliable, independent sources. WP:INUNIVERSE outlines some of the problems keeping articles solely devoted to plot details. Savidan 23:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | 00:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete all Much as I love alternate history, none of these fictional alternate history things are the least bit notable here in the real world. The smart thing to do would be to mention them in the Timeline-191 article, which would not be confused with something that exists in reality. If that article is getting too long, then try to write it more concisely and use links. An article about a war between Spain and Japan has no place in a serious encyclopedia. I have it on good authority that there's a similar debate going on in a parallel universe on "Electric Library Encyclopedia", the counterpart to this (E.L.E. is "the encyclopedia that any emancipated gentleman can edit"). Mandsford (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete all As Mandsford says... must have independent notability, with refs and everything. IronDuke 03:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikia:Annex 76.66.192.91 (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No such thing. Wikia is a for-profit site not affiliated with Misplaced Pages. Besides, it is clear that they already have articles on these topics. Savidan 05:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not all of the articles are covered and some can be expanded. Nothing stops any editor from moving the content their I believe. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete all: I'm with Mandsford on this - and I started Sequoyah (fictional U.S. state). While there's a logical possibility that any number of reliable sources will, en masse and next Tuesday, turn their attention to confirming that, say, "Occupied Canada was a fictional geo-political entity in Harry Turtledove's Timeline-191", it's not gonna happen.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Merge anything useful into Timeline-191. If there is nothing, redirect plausible search terms to said article and delete the implausibles. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment - The lead article up for deletion -- Hispano-Japanese War -- I redirected during the lull between the original, super-massive AfD being withdrawn and the creation of this broader AfD. FYI. --EEMIV (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete articles with parenthetical disambiguation text (unlikely search terms); redirect the others to the timeline article. --EEMIV (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete I had a fear that this would happen and in the past I tried to make some effort to consolidate but my heart was never into it. Parts of the World War I and II articles could be merged with the Great War (Harry Turtledove) and Settling Accounts articles, but the rest can be deleted. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete or possibly merge. Redirects here are problematic, because of the possibility of confusion. If they are done, we need a clear revision of the MOS to permit adding (in the fiction series Harry Turtledove) to prevent confusion.-- even if there is no RW corresponding event.DGG (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
DELETE ALL and transwiki the editors behind these to Wikia. These ludicrous excuses for articles are excellent examples of why extensive coverage of mass-market pop-fiction is harmful. Jack Merridew 07:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate should be included in a list of crap-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 07:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories: