Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Imperial Andermani Navy: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:58, 11 April 2009 editLankiveil (talk | contribs)27,123 edits →Imperial Andermani Navy: merge← Previous edit Revision as of 00:24, 12 April 2009 edit undoJuliancolton (talk | contribs)Administrators130,415 edits Closing debate, result was merge to Andermani EmpireNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''merge to ]'''. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 00:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|F}}


:{{la|Imperial Andermani Navy}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> :{{la|Imperial Andermani Navy}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
Line 21: Line 27:
*'''merge''' to A. Empire. And a ] to whoever added all those tags. That's just obnoxious. Pick a few or use a single box at the least ] (]) 02:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC) *'''merge''' to A. Empire. And a ] to whoever added all those tags. That's just obnoxious. Pick a few or use a single box at the least ] (]) 02:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' anything useful and sourced to ]. Not notable in the wider world, so a standalone article is inappropriate. ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC). *'''Merge''' anything useful and sourced to ]. Not notable in the wider world, so a standalone article is inappropriate. ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Revision as of 00:24, 12 April 2009

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 merge to Andermani Empire. –Juliancolton |  00:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Imperial Andermani Navy

Imperial Andermani Navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Entirely unreferenced in-universe plot summary with no assertion or hint of notability -- soundly fails WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:RS, WP:GNG. Being marked for cleanup for more than a year has yielded only tweaks to insignificant trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge to List of organizations in the Honorverse and/or Andermani Empire and transwiki to the fiction wikia 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge as previous user suggested. Debresser (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Excuse me if I'm not placing my comments in the correct place, anybody feel free to move or edit them. The idea of deleting any user created content is absolutely abhorent (sp?) in my opinion. David Weber doesn't create enough content or background material as it is, and having Misplaced Pages as a reference source has been very useful to me. DO NOT DELETE!!! Having said that, it IS TRUE that sometimes WHERE the content is is a very legitimate argument. The idea of merging the IAN into Andermani Empire does make sense, provided that a "#REDIRECT" is left in place. Likewise, a mention in the List of organizations in the Honorverse that links to the IAN subsection in Andermani Empire also makes sense. LP-mn (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge. I'd even more support proper transwikifying to Honorverse wiki. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete — I tagged this more than a year ago and also added a references sections — albeit, an empty one — and note that it is still empty. This is trivia-magnet; it is a non-notable, unsourced fan-playground. If someone cares to beam this outtahere, fine, but it is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. G'day, Jack Merridew 13:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion, favor merge to Anderman Emipre There is a balance required here. On the one hand, the urge to apply ll WP:policies with rigor and the reality of human experience knowledge and behavior. Political positions (whatever their origin) lead to policies which, when applied with over vigor, resu;t in reduced quality for WP as a whole. On the other hand, fannish enthusiam can lead to over many proliferating micro articles which are largely fluff and themselves reduce WP quality. Where that balance should be, or whether statutory clumsiness should be revised, are questions which require some consideration, discussion, and likely compromise. An underlying problem is that one editors trivia is anther's vital interest; one suggests deletion or consolidation, the other expansive fan copy. When the sugject is fiction, as in this instance, the boundary between the two is indistinct at best. Homer was once thought entirely fictional and having nothing but a notional connection to history; experience and Schliemann and Severin have demonstrated otherwise. The Honorverse fiction is unlikely to experience such a transformation, to be sure, but judicious caution is any direction nevertheless would be wise. Perhaps a later Greek admonition, "moderation in all things" might be a guide.
  • In this instance, the article has not as alleged become a trivia-magnet. It has also not, as hoped, been filled out to become an article with sufficient gravitas to impress. The topic is of low and passing importance in the accounts of this fictional universe and so merger with the Empire article seems reasonable. It is not of so little importance that it should be deleted. That is, if Honoverse content has a place on WP.
  • The comment by Piotrus, suggesting removal of all such content from WP in favor of a fan site is wrong footed. WP is neutral and does not take positions on the worth of this or that subject by deciding to not cover it. Notability is a filter designed to reduce the article load such that articles each have some gravitas. It is not a tool designed to be used to implicitly implement value judgments about article worth. I therefore strongly appose any such suggestion. ww (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment for those suggesting a merge: The text at Andermani Empire sufficiently covers this navy. It is does not delve fully into the uncited in-universe plot summary as the current stand-alone article -- for the better. There is no cited, real-world-relevant content that needs merging. --EEMIV (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Since you think so, better you leave the merge to others. Debresser (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
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.