173:
There does not appear to be any evidence in any of the above rationales that editors have checked any of the three sources cited in the article (at the time of nomination), to see how in-depth their coverage of this subject actually is. As such, the rationales about notability are flawed. I suggest
225:
WP:WAF began life as an essay that I wrote in
January 2005. By arguing that the source substantiates the summary, you have argued that it is verifiable from a secondary source, rather than verifiable solely through reading the works of fiction themselves, and not original research.
389:
Should have mentioned I added the source. It is an entire article on the topic. I don't have access to the article, but I'm still guessing that what looks like a ~15 page article in a published magazine is a reasonable source. But I honestly don't know, thus the weak keep.
240:
The origins of WAF don't particularly matter. Consensus in
January 2008 is that articles about fictional topics need to demonstrate real-world significance, and not simply regurgitate the
306:
113:
244:. This article does not do this. The article does not even assert that the topic matters in the real world, let alone why it matters or where that evidence is found. --
371:
I'm certainly not an expert here, but I did find an article on the topic from 1994. Really I don't have a clue how important the topic is, but it does seem sourced.
352:
because a more generally understandable article can be written since there are sources. As is, just as EEMIV says, it takes an expert to figure it out.
86:
81:
90:
73:
285:, the very first source cited, would seem to be a reliable source. After all he, of all people, would seem to be an expert in this area.
199:. There are no sources -- or even claims -- about this topic's real-world notability, development, critical response etc. I know
17:
399:
380:
363:
342:
321:
294:
276:
253:
235:
220:
187:
168:
151:
129:
55:
419:
338:
272:
52:
36:
418:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
77:
69:
61:
334:
268:
175:
49:
143:
178:, and then actually make the effort to examine the provenances and depths of the sources cited.
164:
317:
290:
282:
231:
183:
147:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
395:
376:
249:
216:
125:
120:
In-universe plot summary with no assertion of notability or even context for non-fans. --
241:
204:
196:
359:
208:
160:
313:
286:
227:
179:
107:
200:
139:
391:
372:
245:
212:
121:
354:
267:- As there is no assertion of notability through reliable sourcing.
174:
that editors familiarize themselves with the criteria set out in
412:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
195:- I'm familiar with the sources. All they do is substantiate
103:
99:
95:
333:
reliable secondary sources, so that would be a start.
307:
list of
Science fiction-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
422:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
305:: This debate has been included in the
138:per nom. No assertion of notability per
7:
329:Notability is established through
24:
203:-- how about you take a look at
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
400:20:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
381:22:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
364:17:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
343:22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
322:08:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
295:18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
277:17:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
254:18:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
236:18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
221:17:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
188:17:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
169:15:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
152:14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
130:14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
56:03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
439:
159:. This fails WP:FICT. --
415:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
176:Knowledge:Notability
70:Pentastar Alignment
62:Pentastar Alignment
324:
310:
283:Kevin J. Anderson
430:
417:
311:
301:
111:
93:
34:
438:
437:
433:
432:
431:
429:
428:
427:
426:
420:deletion review
413:
335:Judgesurreal777
269:Judgesurreal777
84:
68:
65:
50:Yamamoto Ichiro
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
436:
434:
425:
424:
407:
405:
404:
403:
402:
384:
383:
366:
346:
345:
326:
325:
299:
298:
297:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
171:
154:
118:
117:
64:
59:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
435:
423:
421:
416:
410:
409:
408:
401:
397:
393:
388:
387:
386:
385:
382:
378:
374:
370:
367:
365:
361:
357:
356:
351:
348:
347:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
327:
323:
319:
315:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
279:
278:
274:
270:
266:
263:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
238:
237:
233:
229:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
191:
190:
189:
185:
181:
177:
172:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
134:
133:
132:
131:
127:
123:
115:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
414:
411:
406:
368:
353:
349:
330:
302:
281:The book by
264:
197:plot summary
192:
156:
135:
119:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
369:Weak keep
350:Weak keep
314:β’ Gene93k
331:multiple
161:Mikeblas
114:View log
287:Uncle G
228:Uncle G
205:WP:FICT
193:Comment
180:Uncle G
144:Mh29255
87:protect
82:history
265:Delete
209:WP:WAF
157:Delete
136:Delete
91:delete
392:Hobit
373:Hobit
246:EEMIV
213:EEMIV
122:EEMIV
108:views
100:watch
96:links
16:<
396:talk
377:talk
360:talk
339:talk
318:talk
303:Note
291:talk
273:talk
250:talk
242:plot
232:talk
217:talk
211:. --
207:and
201:WP:N
184:talk
165:talk
148:talk
140:WP:N
126:talk
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
355:DGG
309:.
112:β (
398:)
379:)
362:)
341:)
320:)
293:)
275:)
252:)
234:)
219:)
186:)
167:)
150:)
142:.
128:)
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
53:δΌθ©±
48:.
394:(
375:(
358:(
337:(
316:(
312:β
289:(
271:(
248:(
230:(
215:(
182:(
163:(
146:(
124:(
116:)
110:)
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.