Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagernaut

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Catherine_Asaro#Saga_of_the_Skolian_Empire. There is no consensus how to deal with this article, although consensus is also against keeping the article in its current form. Several options were presented in this discussion, from outright deletion to redirecting without merging to merging the content to a new Saga of the Skolian Empire article. There is no agreement though which of those options should be used to deal with the article, so further discussion on the relevant talk pages is probably needed. As such, I have closed this as redirect to Catherine_Asaro#Saga_of_the_Skolian_Empire for now, which removes the article itself (which was the outcome those arguing for deletion or redirecting wanted) without removing the content (which allows the material to be merged somewhere else) and thus should reflect the general consensus of this discussion that the subject is not worthy of a stand-alone article. Regards SoWhy 15:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jagernaut

[edit]
Jagernaut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This deprodded article is on a type of fighter pilot in a science fiction series. It contains nothing but WP:PLOT description, presented in a most unencyclopedic way. Title cannot be redirected (a favorite solution of some editors who don't want outright deletion), since the term Jagernaut is the name of both real and fictional places going back hundreds of years. But most importantly to this nomination is the total lack of independent third party sources. Abductive (reasoning) 15:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Although sources are absent, this is because the information is culled from the books of the Saga of the Skolian Empire. It is an article with not a superfluous sentence or even word to it: all three sections full of relevant information. No plot descriptions at all, and as encyclopedic as any average article on Wikipedia. No idea why the nominator is so denegrating towards this article. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, see WP:OR: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Debresser (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may be confused; that requires secondary sources, which this topic has none. Abductive (reasoning) 15:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say so? Debresser (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." in the WP:OR policy, towards the top. WP:POLICY is a very high level of consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 15:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The stress in this sentence from the policy that enjoys such a high level of consensus is on "can". See e.g. Template_talk:Unreferenced#RFC:_Should_the_template_employ_.22unverifiable.22_or_.22unverified.22.3F for illustrational purposes only. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try getting consensus next time. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we wait for other people to comment? It is possible that you might be wrong. Abductive (reasoning) 15:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, by all means. I had something to say, so I said it. Anything wrong with that? Debresser (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always try to educate, and not to alienate, my fellow editors in these discussions. Abductive (reasoning) 15:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your talking down will make that a hard thing to do. Debresser (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The term Jagernaut is the name of both real and fictional places going back hundreds of years". I know the terms "Juggernaut" and "Argonaut", but am unfamiliar with "Jagernaut" outside this fiction series. What else does it refer to? Debresser (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a Catherine Asaro book tops that list... Anyway, since we have no other titles with "Jagernaut" on Wikipedia(no disambiguation), I do not see the problem with redirecting you mentioned. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we calm it down a little guys? But yeah, delete, unsourced, no notability established. Been plenty of time to address the 8 issues and no effort has been made to improve the article to Wikipedia's standards. I doubt the notability issue could ever be addressed, I can't really find any reliable coverage on the subject itself. Rehevkor ✉ 16:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Smerge (selectively merge) to "Catherine Asaro#Saga of the Skolian Empire" section of the article about the author. She has written a series of short stories and novels over a period of years dealing with this fictional sci-fi universe. Much of the body of the work is only ebooks, though some may have appeared in conventional publication. (added: See below: Amazon verifies hardback or paperback publication by imprints such as Baen) It is not encyclopedic to make articles out of every character type, imaginary place, gadget or event which appears in a fictional universe of this sort, when no secondary sources have discussed them. We have cut back on the similar offshoot articles in the Buffyverse, the Gundum series, and other better known and more discussed fictional worlds. If the Saga of the Skolian Empire section of the author's article gets too long, it could be spun off, undoing the earlier merge. I would prefer one article on the series if it is judged the fiction series is notable enough for one, rather than such a series of article about every plot element. It is helpful to a reader of one of the books to be able to figure out the previous events the particular work refers to. The set of articles about characters, places and events in the series appears to be a Wikipedia:Walled garden created by a fan of the series without secondary sources in early 2006, which should be should be similarly smerged or redirected. Violates WP:PLOT.Edison (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all are printed, and many have received awards (see Catherine_Asaro#Awards). Debresser (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not reject ebook publication as an index of notability, but actual hardback.paperback publication by a major publisher is an easier criterion to judge, since the lower bounds of webposting get down to amateur garbage and fanfiction. A vanity or on-demand imprint is not much evidence of notability, but these appear to be traditionally published. In the emerging world of Kindles and Sony Readers, the number of trees which give their lives to publish a work will be less and less of an effective criterion. Edison (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added two small references. That is a start. And a reason the more to keep this article. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that some of the Wikipedia article lack publication information,. Where is the publication information for The Radiant Seas, Ascendant Sun, Spherical Harmonic,and The Moon's Shadow? Several novels' articles say that some part was published as a short story, but that surely does not establish notabilty of the whole novel. [Schism (novel)]] has an ISBN listed but what is it for, the whole book or the short story portion?. "The Ruby Dice" and "Diamond Star" have neither articles nor publication info. Since The Quantum Rose was a Nebula award winner, I see the series as likely notable enough for coverage either as a part of the author's article or as a stand-alone, but I object to making articles about every plot element. Edison (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out things that need to be remedied. I'll make an effort in the next few hours. And I, of course, agree with you that not all plot elements should have an article. Just some of them; those that are most distinguishing. Actually, some were deleted in July 2009. Although I was disappointed that Sauscony Lahaylia Valdoria Skolia was deletd, being that she is arguably the most central character of the whole series. Debresser (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If S.L.V.S is that important, some mention in one article about the series is called for. Amazon could apparently be used to source the publication info for print editions of the books. I found a number of hardbacks or paperbacks in the series by the author. I made a change in my comment above, accordingly. Notability for a book requires more than being published by Baen books and having an Amazon sales rank of #600,000. Independent editorial reviews (which some have) are needed on a case by case basis. That still does not justify the indiscriminate information of breakout articles about each plot element. I would like to see one article about the series, with perhaps a timeline if one was provided and isn't OR, and summaries of various important plot elements. Edison (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ISFDB is IMO a significantly more through and relaible source for publication information than Amazon is, and it is already linked to from the author's article. DES (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a timeline at the end of most of the series' books. I can put a copy up anywhere you want. But would that be a copyright infringement? Debresser (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added {{Infobox Book}} and references to the four articles you mentioned. Perhaps we continue on my talkpage, if you have any more suggestion to improve the overall quality of the articles on this series. Debresser (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge but certainly not what is called "smerge, " a merge with only a little bit of content preserved. I see that a comment above refers to "I would prefer to see". What a particular person would prefer to see has nothing to do with what should be in an encyclopedia; it's IDONTLIKEIT. , Some of us might like to see the minimal treatment of fiction possible; some of us might light to see a full treatment of everything but fanfic, just a little less than a fansite would have. Some of us would prefer to have it in one article, some in many. The actual standard is " encyclopedic content", which can only mean what the readers will expect in an encyclopedia like this-a modern comprehensive encyclopedia known for its coverage of popular culture, and with no limit on size--all very different from what they would have expected in a printed encyclopedia, one traditionally been used mainly for conventional school assignments. The point of Wikipedia was not to emulate Brittanica. The virtue of a broad approach is to be very simple & obvious: if we cover it fully, we can satisfy both those who want full information on the topic and those who do not--because those who do not will simply not read the article. It takes up no space in their bookshelves. It displaces nothing else that they would want to see more. I can imagine few reasons why I should ever want to read this article, unless I encounter a fan and am desperate to make conversation--but it being here does not interfere with what i might want to read about. If I had to keep Wikipedia in print, then I'd want material like this cut, to make it more convenient to read. If its presence does bother someone, there is nothing stopping them from making a partial mirror of Wikipedia--a technique not available in a printed work. it shouldn't be that hard to take the category scheme and set it up automatically. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that "selectively merge" in no way implies "preserve only a little bit of content." See WP:SMERGE. It calls for preserving more content than the common practice of replacing an article with a redirect. An "unselective merge" would likely add too much detailed text about the plot to the main article. An article about a book should not paraphrase the book. (See WP:NOT indiscriminate information). Also, I did not say or imply that I did not like the series or its plot elements. I encouraged the restoration of an article about the series, previously merged into the article about the author. You note that "encyclopedic content" is "what the readers will expect in an encyclopedia like this." As a reader and editor, I am entitled to state what I expect to see. "It displaces nothing" is a poor reason to keep content. Edison (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
then we would need a disam note, and possibly a page or pages on the other use(s). that's a routine situation when terms are used in various fictional contexts. Or are you proposing we eliminate all such articles? DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not true that items in disambigs have to have some basis? For example, I can't put my name into the disambig for my surname unless there is an article on me, or I am mentioned in an article. Right? So this "jagernaut", a job description, has no mention in secondary sources, and therefore should have no mention in any article on Wikipedia, since nothing encyclopedic can be said about it. Some of the other terms associated with the Skolian Empire series have a few scattered references, perhaps enough to allow their mention in an overall article, but not this one. Abductive (reasoning) 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of POV terms like "hijacking" noticed, there are rules on Wikipedia about redirecting and disambiguating. If there is no other Wikipedia article with this term, there is (for the time being) no reason not to have this as the mean article for Jagernaut. Debresser (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expressing a POV isn't forbidden in an AfD debate, it is only problematic in mainspace. Abductive (reasoning) 17:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But using POV language is problematic anywhere, because it antagonises people. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like you are the article creator or Ms Asaro herself, right? I wasn't accusing you, but I am sorry if you felt antagonized. Abductive (reasoning) 22:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. :) Although I have substantially edited Catherine Asaro and most articles connected wth the Saga of the Skolian Empire. Ok, let's be professional about this. Friends! Debresser (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect mostly per Edison above. This type of character has no out-of-universe notability. I also don't see anyone asserting that they don't like this article. Every editor on Wikipedia has their own personal view of what the encyclopedia should contain; that's why we have AfDs to judge broad consensus instead of letting editors delete without discussion. ThemFromSpace 18:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:PLOT, WP:OR, and as per some of the arguments by Edison above. Detailed articles on specific plot elements of works of fiction that do not have separate secondary source coverage are generally not appropriate for Wikipedia articles, except possibly where the works of fiction are so well known as to have significant real-world cultural impact. But in such cases there will generally be secondary sources available. And in any such case a vaid article will not be primarily in in-universe style, but will discuss how the plot element fits into the work of fiction, and perhaps its separate cultural impacts. If any of the info in this article is relevant enough it can be merged, but I suspect that would result in an article with an overly detailed plot description, in contravention of WP:PLOT. DES (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Asaro is a major SF author, and her work (at least the overall body of it) is clearly notable. (The ISFDB link in her article gives specific and detailed publication information). But that doesn't make every character or group of charaters in her books individually notable or article-worthy. If someone does a critical study of her work (published in a reliable source) in which the Jagernauts are discussed in some detail, that will be time enough to consider an article such as this. I don't, frankly, see a reason to preserve even a redirect in this case. DES (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weren't all the articles for this book series nominated before? No one cares about the suggested guidelines, they not binding in any way. They were passed by a small number of people, and used as an excuse to delete things they don't like. Wikipedia is not a set of elitist rules. There is nothing gained by deleting articles that some would find interesting to read, and which those who don't aren't likely to find at all. Jagernauts are notable aspects of this series, found in several of the books. Clicking on the Google news search at the top of the AFD, I see 7 results, most of them book reviews, they an important and interesting part of the series. WP:IAR If a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. Dream Focus 22:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a Saga of the Skolian Empire article (Create the article from all the redirected stuff) 76.66.201.33 (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect merging after redirecting is acceptable. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Delete as non-notable fictional element. This is simple; it is not appropriate for inclusion; all we have here is a regurgitation of chunks of the parent work as a vicarious means of participating in the fictional universe. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources (whatsoever) that could begin to approach justifying inclusion. I direct fanboys to fanfiction sites where they can show more heart and write to their hearts content.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added another few references. Compare this related Afd, where the closing comment shows that sourcing is a good enough reason to gain a keep. I would advise the nominator and all those who voted "delete" (many of whom I remember from other discussion as hard-line deletionists), to start searching for sources and actually improve the article, instead of taking the easy way out with an Afd. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, the people who don't think it's notable should prove notability? I would think that the person that asserts notability should bear the burden of proof. --Slashme (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Making a genuine effort to improve the article, including sourcing it, may open up their eyes to the notability of the article. How can anybody assess notability without first having a good look for sources? Debresser (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've looked, and I can't find any reliable third-party sources on this topic per se, so my vote remains delete as below. Please show me if you find something to support your keep vote. --Slashme (talk)
  • Delete: this is an article about a type of military force in a series of novels. The topic is completely non-notable on its own. Where is the evidence of significant coverage by reliable third parties? --Slashme (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There quite a few primary and secondary sources. Which is good enough for fictional elements. Debresser (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After the additions mentioned above the cited references are: 1) several primary sources: the texts of the Asaro books themselves. These establish that the term is used in the books, but are no help whatever in establishing real world notability; and 2) three book reviews or notices. Each uses the term exactly once, in a single sentence not further elaborated on, as part of a plot summary. At least one appears to be a reprint or rephrasing of the publisher's blurb. I don't see these, separately or together, as establishing any notability for the term. My view to delete above remains unchanged, and my reasoning above still applies. Sourcing can be a good reason to change a Delete to a Keep, but not the kind of sources now cited. If a source -- even one source -- discussed the Jagernauts in some depth, perhaps comparing therm to other fictiopnal or real-world military organizations, or discussing the role they play in these works, that would be a different matter. That would IMO establish notability, or at least strongly suggest it. So far, no cited secondary source does this. As it stands, the term is used merely as an identifying name in the secondary sources, and could be changed to "Death Commandos" or "Grand Military Forces" or any other plausible name for a fictional military group and there would be no effective change in those sources. DES (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically the current secondary sources say:
  • "Young Soz secretly applies to become a Jagernaut, a member of the Skolian elite fighting force, against the wishes of her father, Eldrinson." (AccessMyLibrary)
  • "Roca and Eldrinson now have a numerous and respectable family, which includes Althor, a trained Imperial Jagernaut (cybernetic warrior), and 17-year-old Sauscony, who wants to become an IJ, despite her father's violent objections." (AccessMyLibrary)
  • "Sauscony Valdoria is a Jagernaut Primary, a rank equivalent to Admiral, a Rhon Psion, and a member of the Ruby dynasty." (Challenging Destiny)
By the way, the two listings from AccessMyLibrary look very much like publisher's blurbs, and I'm not sure just how independant they actually are. But even assuming that they are fully independent, IMO all three are "trivial" as far as this term/plot element (Jagernaut) goes. DES (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search on Jagernaut Asaro finds several blog/forum posts and some fan sites; Google books and Baen Books sites with the text (or excerpts from the text) of the books themselves (primary sources); a number of vendor sites with plot summaries or blurbs of the books; and a single additional review with a one-line trivial mention very similar to those quoted above. The reviews would be excallant for establishing th notability of this series or the books in it, were that in doubt, but not for the term/plot element "Jagernaut". DES (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary editor has restored the deceitful sourcing. Secondary sources should be analytic, in this case providing real-world context of a fictional topic. Here, the secondary sources basically repeat details that are found in the primary source, and they are padded onto this article to give the false appearance that the topic is notable apart from the work. Boiled down to its essence, it's basically the primary source, the book itself, being cited, and this goes to show that there is no real-world context available for this topic, no matter how hard the primary editor tries. Erik (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what a primary source is. What is a primary editor? Debresser (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The primary contributor of the article. You. Now please explain why you are padding the article with secondary sources that fail to analyze this particular topic. You are using secondary sources that basically repeat the information as found in the primary source. This gives the article the false appearance that the topic has been analyzed in multiple reliable sources. Erik (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only added a few sources. The text was written by somebody else. So by no means am I the primary contributor.
The issue you raise you should have discussed on the article's talk page. Now you are on WP:ANI for repeated removal of sources. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jagernaut&oldid=1137939649"