350:"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C." Do you see what is meant here by Original Research here? An encyclopedic article has to document some notable bit of knowledge, and that knowledge has to exist prior to the article being written, otherwise it's just a collection of facts, and that's not what an encyclopedia is for.
289:. A decent, sourced article on Space warfare in fiction could probably be written, but there is nothing salvagable from the article as it stands to even establish a stub. Unless this article gets a complete and total rewrite before the end of this AfD I think this should be deleted without prejudice against an actual sourced article being created at this namespace.--
485:(Fancruft)...implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith.
402:
but there's no doubt in my mind that this is a perfectly valid topic for an encyclopedia. The current article however is pretty bad but keeping a stub might entice someone else to expand it properly. Of course, this is a perfect target for hit-and-run editors that add one sentence of trivia and leave
345:
That's not quite what is needed here. As someone else has pointed out above, the sources need have to explicitly discuss the topic of space warfare in fiction, and more importantly the article has to be more or less be about what those sources have to say. The sources cannot be sprinkled in there to
623:
If something is poorly written and/or contains original research, but could be made into a good article, then it would be better to improve it. Speaking about notability, we should focus on whether the title can promise a good article about something notable enough, not how it is written at a given
419:
is mainly about real or projected space warfare with current levels of technology, while Space warfare in fiction is about space warfare appearing in science fiction novels, i.e. that has little or no basis in current technical fact. Stubifying might be a better idea, but I still think a lot of the
382:
The topic of the article is fine, but unfortunately the article as written is entirely original research. It is not collating research by other published sources on warfare in space - rather it is the author giving his own analysis of how things might work using a few examples from fiction. What
562:
I read the nomination before the article and was expecting a massive essay, which I didn't find. To say that it's an invitation for a listing of every example of space conflict is a bit of a stretch. I can't get behind the OR accusation either. There is no synthesis, no ideas have been created
511:
users consider this a pejorative term and see it as insulting to well-meaning contributors. They might likewise consider use of the term in forums such as articles for deletion inappropriate, but it is nevertheless in common use there". I am not one of these users. It was a description of my
211:"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C."
586:
It's the stub for a subject that ought to be in
Knowledge, and may inspire improvement. If it turns instead into a substantial amount of fancruft you can delete it when it becomes worthy of attention.
115:
Nominated for deletion, article is either WP:OR essay on the nature of "Space warfare" as demonstrated in works of fiction, or heading to becoming a list of all depictions of space warfare in fiction.
223:- What "position C" are you talking about? The article doesn't make sweeping assertions. It simply collates verifiable pieces of information about space warfare in sci-fi series, books and movies.
491:
novel. It is a remarkably succinct and helpful summary of the concept of space warfare in sci-fi (and no, before anyone asks, I didn't write any of it - see the article history).
98:
535:). That being said, much of the OR in this article is my own doing, as I have yet to referance it. The information should be kept, and at the very least merged back into
151:
This is one of my favourite articles and I found it immensely interesting when I first found it some months ago. I know my personal feelings don't affect
512:
opinion, not an insult, and afer re-reading the article, and its examples of
Freespace using nebulae, and Stargate up a sun, I have not changed it.--
346:
support what the
Knowledge article author has to say. That's the essential problem with OR in this article. To repeat the relevant excerpt from from
191:
the research that is being collated, and thereby alleviate the concerns of other editors that this is original research. Please cite sources.
460:- OR, fancruft, no end of it in sight - Voyager fires a few torpedos at a Malon vessel in "Night", does that get an entry on the article?
447:
551:
334:
155:, but also I think every statement in the article could be sourced to specific statements in the books/films in question, satisfying
135:
Yeah I know, I just goofed making the initial page with the one-liner template, and wanted to add more desccription of rationale.
17:
75:
652:
640:
628:
605:
590:
578:
557:
519:
495:
471:
452:
424:
407:
391:
366:
354:
340:
310:
301:
unless it's sourced by the end of the AfD period. No sources in there at present, so it definitely looks like OR to me.
293:
277:
273:
260:
245:
227:
215:
195:
179:
163:
139:
130:
119:
109:
52:
175:, sorry no. We need to follow policies and guidelines, such things are original research and non-notable by default.
598:. This could have been a very interesting article, but the current version is, quite frankly, very disappointing.
667:
125:
36:
666:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
66:
58:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
492:
421:
363:
224:
160:
444:
203:
There's no doubt that the fiction is published & referenceable, it's my contention that this amounts to
159:. It's not OR, it's a collation of other people's research - which is what an encyclopedia article is for.
83:
546:
329:
188:
441:
286:
254:
242:
176:
602:
257:
573:
516:
468:
404:
306:
636:
clearly a notable fictional concept but the article is pure OR based soley on primary sources.
531:
I must admit, I am a regular contributor to this article (thanks for telling me about this RFA
479:- Your use of the term "fancruft" in this context is highly insulting - see the following from
541:
324:
172:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
649:
625:
49:
637:
600:
124:
Please do note that you don't have to "vote" again after nominating: this isn't a vote. -
587:
532:
351:
290:
212:
156:
152:
136:
116:
106:
487:
This article is not comparable to an article on an obscure one-scene character from a
568:
536:
513:
504:
480:
465:
461:
416:
398:
302:
388:
347:
238:
208:
204:
192:
434:- IDONTLIKEITÂ != deletion criteri, perfectly good article with tons of potential.
614:
362:- But what specific "position C" are you talking about? See my comment earlier.
269:
488:
563:
through the merging of existing ones. This is a valid topic for anarticle,
660:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
383:
you need is to write an article using published sources that
462:
Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collector of information
403:
but I don't think that outright deletion serves
Knowledge.
185:
It's not OR, it's a collation of other people's research
91:
87:
79:
71:
187:— If that is in fact the case, you should be able to
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
670:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
613:unless more references are included...
268:purely original research synthesis.--
7:
322:There is at least 1 source up now.
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
617:18:0s9, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
653:16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
641:11:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
629:20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
606:15:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
591:01:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
579:04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
558:01:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
520:14:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
496:20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
472:22:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
453:22:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
425:13:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
408:19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
392:21:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
367:18:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
355:04:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
341:01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
311:21:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
294:18:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
278:16:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
261:14:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
246:13:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
228:20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
216:15:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
196:15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
180:13:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
164:13:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
140:15:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
131:12:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
120:07:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
110:07:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
53:16:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
687:
387:talk about space warfare.
397:Stubify or merge back to
663:Please do not modify it.
67:Space warfare in fiction
59:Space warfare in fiction
32:Please do not modify it.
420:text is salvageable.
648:Original research.
493:Walton monarchist89
422:Walton monarchist89
364:Walton monarchist89
225:Walton monarchist89
161:Walton monarchist89
596:Merge and redirect
285:and I concur with
221:Reply to Pete.Hurd
105:Original research
451:
309:
239:original research
678:
665:
576:
571:
554:
549:
544:
450:
435:
413:Not a good merge
337:
332:
327:
305:
255:User:Terence Ong
128:
96:
95:
34:
686:
685:
681:
680:
679:
677:
676:
675:
674:
668:deletion review
661:
574:
569:
552:
547:
542:
448:52278 Alpha 771
442:Fenton, Matthew
436:
335:
330:
325:
276:
205:OR by synthesis
126:
69:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
684:
682:
673:
672:
656:
655:
643:
631:
618:
608:
593:
581:
560:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
455:
429:
428:
427:
394:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
314:
313:
296:
280:
272:
263:
248:
232:
231:
230:
218:
198:
182:
146:
145:
144:
143:
142:
103:
102:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
683:
671:
669:
664:
658:
657:
654:
651:
647:
644:
642:
639:
635:
632:
630:
627:
622:
619:
616:
612:
609:
607:
604:
603:
601:
597:
594:
592:
589:
585:
582:
580:
577:
572:
566:
561:
559:
556:
555:
550:
545:
538:
537:Space Warfare
534:
530:
529:Keep or Merge
527:
521:
518:
515:
510:
507:also states "
506:
502:
499:
498:
497:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
475:
474:
473:
470:
467:
463:
459:
456:
454:
449:
446:
443:
439:
433:
430:
426:
423:
418:
417:Space warfare
414:
411:
410:
409:
406:
405:Pascal.Tesson
401:
400:
399:Space warfare
395:
393:
390:
386:
381:
378:
377:
368:
365:
361:
358:
357:
356:
353:
349:
344:
343:
342:
339:
338:
333:
328:
321:
318:
317:
316:
315:
312:
308:
304:
300:
297:
295:
292:
288:
284:
281:
279:
275:
271:
267:
264:
262:
259:
256:
252:
249:
247:
244:
240:
236:
233:
229:
226:
222:
219:
217:
214:
210:
206:
202:
199:
197:
194:
190:
186:
183:
181:
178:
174:
170:
167:
166:
165:
162:
158:
154:
150:
147:
141:
138:
134:
133:
132:
129:
123:
122:
121:
118:
114:
113:
112:
111:
108:
100:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
662:
659:
645:
633:
620:
610:
599:
595:
583:
564:
540:
528:
508:
500:
484:
476:
457:
437:
431:
412:
396:
384:
379:
359:
323:
319:
298:
282:
265:
250:
234:
220:
200:
184:
168:
148:
104:
45:
43:
31:
28:
650:Herostratus
626:V. Szabolcs
432:Strong keep
287:Terence Ong
243:Terence Ong
177:Terence Ong
149:Strong Keep
50:Betacommand
638:Eluchil404
543:S h a r k
445:Lexic Dark
326:S h a r k
173:WP:ILIKEIT
588:Andyvphil
533:Pete.Hurd
489:Star Wars
352:Pete.Hurd
291:Isotope23
241:, essay.
213:Pete.Hurd
137:Pete.Hurd
127:brenneman
117:Pete.Hurd
107:Pete.Hurd
624:time. --
548:f a c e
385:directly
331:f a c e
320:Comment:
303:Tony Fox
258:Madmedea
207:. From
189:point to
99:View log
646:Delete.
501:Comment
477:Comment
389:Dugwiki
360:Comment
253:as per
201:Comment
193:Uncle G
169:Comment
157:WP:CITE
153:WP:NOTE
80:history
634:Delete
615:Addhoc
611:Delete
553:2 1 7
505:WP:FAN
481:WP:FAN
458:Delete
438:thanks
380:Delete
336:2 1 7
307:(arf!)
299:Delete
283:Delete
270:danntm
266:Delete
251:Delete
235:Delete
46:delete
570:Malla
348:WP:OR
209:WP:OR
88:watch
84:links
16:<
621:Keep
584:Keep
565:Keep
517:eson
514:Mnem
509:Some
469:eson
466:Mnem
92:logs
76:talk
72:edit
575:nox
503:.
97:- (
567:.
539:.
483::
464:--
415:-
237:,
171::
90:|
86:|
82:|
78:|
74:|
48:.
440:/
274:C
101:)
94:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.