Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muad'Dib

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 keep. I'm sympathetic to the view that discussions concerning redirecting/merging should generally stay on talk pages but in addition to the nomination, we have two delete !voters with WP:NOTDIC concerns. However, the nominator has pointed out that the material may be "encyclopedic" (I hate that word) by recommending targets that it can be merged to. Therefore, this page will likely exist as either an article or a redirect and there's no consensus for the delete button to be hit at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muad'Dib

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of Dune terminology#M, which adequately defines the term and its uses in the series. This "article" merely overblows the concept and this "topic" on its own does not and never will satisfy WP:Notability. Most of this information is also covered in some way as part of other articles anyway. — TAnthony^Talk 17:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may quote the List of Dune terminology entry:

Muad'Dib – "The adapted kangaroo mouse of Arrakis, a creature associated in the Fremen earth-spirit mythology with a design visible on the planet's second moon. This creature is admired by Fremen for its ability to survive in the open desert." In Dune, Paul Atreides takes "Muad'Dib" as his Fremen name, which takes on greater significance when he is perceived as a messiah.

I feel like that says it all. Do we really need a whole article about that? Seriously? — TAnthony^Talk 22:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's not clear, Paul Atreides and Muad'Dib are the same character, so the analysis of the messianic nature of Muad'Dib is analysis about Paul. Why two articles? The alternative uses of Muad'Dib are ancillary and do not merit their own article, rather they can be (and for the most part already are) incorptated into Paul Atreides.— TAnthony^Talk 04:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Muad'Dib is a term with multiple applications within Frank Herbert's Dune universe. Dune is not only about ecology, but also about power of religion. Some say that the ambiguous vocabulary was intended to generate discussion; it is completely up to each individual reader to interpret.
1. . The stub is supported by references. Not bad for a stub.
2. . Similar Dune term Kwisatz Haderach, is not considered for deletion. Many other items in list of terminology have main articles (a, b00, b01, b10, ... list goes on). I would agree though that some terms have much deeper meaning and notability than others.
3. . ~~The stub has following foreign language siblings: Español Français Norsk (bokmål) Polski Português Русский Maybe English Wikipedia also could use one.~~ AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying the article is unsourced, it could have 50 citations but the actual material doesn't meet the requirements for an article to exist. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists regarding your Kwisatz Haderach point, that's not really a strong argument. That topic is actually somewhat flimsy and should probably be merged into Bene Gesserit. And the sister articles are no doubt just copies of this one, doesn't mean a thing.— TAnthony^Talk 22:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have also still not explained here or on the article talk page how you think this stub could/should be expanded into an actual article. What would the additional content be? Analysis of Herbert's themes about religion in the series should go into Dune (novel) or Dune (franchise), analysis of Paul as a messiah would be a great addition to the in-universe article Paul Atreides. "Muad'Dib" in an of itself is not a topic.— TAnthony^Talk 22:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anthony, thank you for pointing to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, agree also translations are not proper arguments for AfD discussions. We could argue about what "Muad'Dib" means as topic, it means many things, not always directly related to Paul. Objective test is coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So I guess citations used in Muad'Dib provide such litmus test indication. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a stub, it's redundant, and to the extent that it is not, it's closer to being a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia entry. As this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, it doesn't belong. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and it's sure as heck not a Dune dictionary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be a Dune encyclopaedia, though. Interestingly, there's no entry by this name in The Dune Encyclopedia. Uncle G (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like a good beginning of an article, not like a dictionary definition to me. DVD 03:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination makes no argument for deletion. The article's sources demonstrate the notability of the topic and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am completely stumped how this can be viewed as an article worthy of existence. "Muad'Dib" is a fictional mouse and a character's name in a novel. This is indeed an overblown dictionary entry, and I'd love someone to explain here how they think this could really be expanded into an article.— TAnthony^Talk 22:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is already an article. We have no minimum size requirement but it seems quite feasible to expand it further and deletion would disrupt this, contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - My point is how would it be expanded? What else is there to say? This "topic" is covered in its entirety elsewhere.— TAnthony^Talk 23:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it isn't. The entry in your List of Dune terminology is significantly smaller, not so well-sourced and lacks many significant details. The overall size of the list article is 34K which is getting too big and so should not be increased further. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        What significant details? The list entry leads the reader to Paul Atreides, and the plot stuff is already, or can be, detailed there. The etymology is actually OR, because it represents editors making the connection between real-life Arabic words and Herbert's fiction, essentially drawing conclusions. And STILL no one has tried to explain why we need this article when we already have Paul Atreides. I believe that article explains that he took the name of a mouse which was also the name of a constellation. All fictional, by the way.— TAnthony^Talk 20:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no OR because others have previously recorded the connection between real-world Arabic and the language of the book. For example, one of the sources cited in the article states, "The nickname that Paul chooses in the story is Muad'dib, and is said to be the name of the desert mouse who comes at night in the moon light. Although the English pronounciation of this word calls for a long "i", there is an almost exact word in Arabic like it (Mu'adib), which means "private tutor" or "teacher". It used to be that the Caliphs, the rulers of the Muslim world, would hire a Mu'adib to teach their children. The practice seemed to be common for other strata of society as well.". Colonel Warden (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That source is some kind of term paper that doesn't meet the requirements for a source, but I've used it because it pretty much states the obvious. I've left the etymology because Herbert himself references "instructor-of-boys" and so the definition of "Mu'addib" is interesting and a likely source. But I've brought this discussion off topic ... why do we need this article again??— TAnthony^Talk 22:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this nomination. In order to redirect as proposed by nominator, the page need not be deleted. As point 4 of WP:BEFORE notes: "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article – something you can do yourself without opening an AfD case". In any case, do not delete the page but either keep or redirect. --Lambiam 09:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly redirected but was challenged by a single editor, and a call for discussion on the talk page attracted no other comments. As far as I know, a redirect is an acceptable result for an AfD.— TAnthony^Talk 21:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a reason to speedily close the discussion — "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course." Colonel Warden (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no content dispute that I am trying to subvert; I don't think this article needs to exist as its own topic, but obviously a redirect of some kind is necessary. All the sources in the world analyzing Herbert's religious themes do not change the fact that Paul Atreides and Muad'Dib are the same character. Notability for "Muad'Dib" is notability for Paul. I don't think this article should exist when the potentially lengthy analysis of the messianic plotline can be incorporated into Paul Atreides, it's more logical home. And whatever details about the mouse and the moon and the constellation that aren't there can be added.— TAnthony^Talk 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anthony, let's observe File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg. Your central points were explicitly refuted by multiple angles. Wikipedia is about collaboration, do you think it is possible to reach some kind of consensus? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no argument for deletion other than it being a stub or a dictionary entry. We have plenty of those here and the article in question itself does have secondary sources indicating some measure of notability. --Polaron | Talk 17:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced, ties-in to real world language, multiple instances inside the Dune universe that need to be disambiguated (Paul, the mouse, the shadow on the moon, the constellation)Hasteur (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2010 (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.