This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dream Focus (talk | contribs) at 11:34, 13 April 2009 (Keep, and glad to read the reasons others are giving here). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:34, 13 April 2009 by Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (Keep, and glad to read the reasons others are giving here)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Treecat
- Treecat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- List of treecats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Entirely unreferenced in-universe trivia and plot summary. No assertion of notability. Google/Google Books searches yield only primary sources, wiki(a) and fan sites. Article and list fail WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:PLOT, WP:IINFO. --EEMIV (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete- I think the nominator's hit the nail on the head. You can't justify articles like these with only primary sources, and I can't find any proper ones either. Reyk YO! 06:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Merge - somewhere. Possibly List of planets in the Honorverse#S? The articles on this particular fantasy series aren't very well structured, but I'm not familiar with the books (and, on reading the Treecat article, I don't think I want to be) so can't really suggest how to improve this issue. Tevildo (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I feel this article has potential. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- See!? I found a real world influence of treecats (apart from the forum username), and added it to the article. And I am sure this is only the beginning: Asimov also became famous slowly. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Fame has nothing to do with it. Neither does Asimov, in fact. Sources, for this subject, count. Did you find anything to support the vast gobbets of unsourced analysis and factual claims in this article, from statememts about the sizes of these things to analysis of their sense of humour? Uncle G (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Those can be found. There is no original research here, just bringing together information, which is an editors job. The problem is locating the source for all the things.
- And my example of Asimov was more relevant than you make it seem. Because we are building an encyclopedia here, and if something needs to be here, because it has potential, than we should be bold and ignore a few rules.
- Fame has nothing to do with it. Neither does Asimov, in fact. Sources, for this subject, count. Did you find anything to support the vast gobbets of unsourced analysis and factual claims in this article, from statememts about the sizes of these things to analysis of their sense of humour? Uncle G (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- See!? I found a real world influence of treecats (apart from the forum username), and added it to the article. And I am sure this is only the beginning: Asimov also became famous slowly. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- As stated in Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) about notability guidelines for fiction: "However, note that strict application of these guidelines to fictional subjects is controversial, and does not enjoy a clear consensus". I'd like to as for a keep for this article on this ground also. Especially since the recently proposed guideline there hasn't been accepted, and further research seems to suggest other criteria, e.g. inherited notability (as in this case, where notability can be inherited from the Honorverse books). Debresser (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Debresser, and per ~150k Google hits. Many of Honorverse concpets are not notable and should be merged or transwikified, granted. This one is, undoubtedly, one of the biggest exceptions. PS. One thing that we could consider is to merge the list of treecats into treecat article, or the list of Honorverse characters.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Those 150K google hits quickly degenerate into cat scratching trees and other things unrelated to this topic -- that's why I pointed toward the same search in my deletion rationale. Beyond that, the ones that actually relate to this H'verse topic are flickr pictures, Misplaced Pages mirrors, and fan sites. This doesn't establish notability. --EEMIV (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Excessive in-universe detail. Apparently part of a very large Honorverse walled garden on Misplaced Pages. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Merge the list into the list of characters article, the article into the glossary article, and transwiki to the Honorverse wiki. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment some of the treecats are major characters in the series, so I fail to see why the list has been nominated for deletion. The nominator has WP:IDONTKNOWIT. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- All of the important ones are listed at List of Honorverse characters. I know this series fine. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep both articles. The series as a whole is important in the sense that a best seller (or in this case multiple bestsellers) is important. It is also the subject of an active forum discussion (at the publisher's site), and has attracted several other writers who have published stories in the series universe. The treecat article is about an important (and it seems increasingly so) species in this universe. The list of treecats article s split out of the treecat article some time ago. Various proposasl to reinclude it have not gotten very far. The urge to delete can be taken too far as in this case. Merge of the list into Honorverse characters is also proposed (and re proposed) -- see the talk page fo rthe list of treecats article.
- We have here an excess of exclusionism, and without a real need to conserve disk storage, the bits saved are not sufficient to justify deletion. And, lack of notablility can't be justified in comparison to the multitude sof articles about records issued by obscure band.s Indeed, of article about obscure bands. Or the vast number of geographical stubs about nations with good geodetic surveys. Personal distaste is insufficient, and deletion for such reasons is a discredit to WP. ww (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- But it's not in any way a significant part of the work in the universe that we live in. You don't need to know much more than that they're sapient tree-dwelling cats that rarely develop an empathic bond with humans to understand the Honorverse novels or understand our articles on the Honorverse novels. That other stuff exists doesn't change this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Excessive in-universe detail. Far beyond the bounds of an (electronic) encyclopedia. JBsupreme (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep For reasons mentioned above. Its perfectly legitimate encyclopedic content, with enough information to fill its own page. I'm against any attempt to merge it, and certainly would object to someone trying to delete it simply because they don't like it, believe they are helping the wikipedia by deleting every fiction article they can get away with, or because of their interpretation of a suggested guideline, which aren't bonding anyway, they guidelines not policy. Dream Focus 11:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)