Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spacing Guild

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 no consensus. There are reasonable arguments on both sides but, after two relists, there is no consensus as to notability and I am not seeing a sound basis for a third relist. Just Chilling (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing Guild

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

this article about a fictional subject cites no secondary reliable sources WP:RS are required to WP:V verify its general notability per WP:GNG. The subject of the article may therefore be unsuitable for a standalone article as it may lack WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources. AadaamS (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

″may″ is not good enough, really. Does it? Or does it not? What research did you do to find out? You've made two identical boilerplate nominations, and you aren't demonstrating that you've actually checked yourself how deletion policy applies.
This is a good example of why research and a good nomination rationale, rather than this boilerplate poor one, counts. In stark contrast to Sardaukar (AfD discussion), sources do exist that document this subject in some depth. Smith 2009, just for starters, is an entire chapter of a non-fiction book that talks about this subject, written by someone who works at NASA JPL.
I did say that Dune was widely analysed. Uncle G (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Smith, John C. (2009). "Navigators and the Spacing Guild". In Grazier, Kevin (ed.). The Science of Dune: An Unauthorized Exploration into the Real Science Behind Frank Herbert's Fictional Universe. Psychology of Popular Culture. BenBella Books, Inc. ISBN 9781935251408.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uncle G's analysis. Though fictional, the topic is notable. In the spirit of full disclosure, I read the original novel 50 years ago and saw the film and part of the miniseries. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor element in a fictional work. One third-party source does not establish notability. Sandstein 07:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge condensed version to Organizations of the Dune universe#Spacing Guild. The topic requires a little more explanation than what is currently in this list, but not quite as much as the current standalone article.— TAnthony^Talk 17:21, 6 July 2019 (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.