Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Admiral (Honorverse)

High Admiral (Honorverse)

High Admiral (Honorverse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A fictional rank whose definition is apparent from name, unsourced, non-notable plot summary. No independent notability (WP:N), does not follow WP:WAF. Written from a in universe perspective. (Was a prod, but has previously been deleted via prod.) Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 12:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; non-notable. FWIW, I prod-2'd this. I had not seen the prior article or looked at the log. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Grayson Space Navy or related article. Slideshow Bob (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (or Merge) - I loved the books, and I'm pleased to see the series well represented here, but this seems too much like cruft for my tastes. It would work better as a line or two as per Slideshow Bob's suggestion. - Bilby (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I hadn't noticed the age of the article, which was foolish of me: I should have checked. I would normally recommend more time for an article. My problem is that while the position is a central one to the novels (the various High Admirals play significant roles in many of the books), and thus having a mention of the role makes sense, I would have thought that it was the characters who held the role that were really significant. Given this I can see a merge making sense, but I can't see this article growing into much beyond a paragraph or two, unless it cannibalizes (or duplicates) material which would be better placed in the discussions of the characters. And if it can't grow, then maybe it should be part of Grayson Space Navy. - Bilby (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Grayson Space Navy or related article. Great books.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per notability and verfiability and consistency with a specialized encyclopedia on Honorverse. Delete "rationales" seem to be Wikipedia:ITSCRUFT and Wikipedia:PERNOM. Also, the article is only TWO DAYS old and has been improved since then. We should allow editors more than just two days to build an article, especially because Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire article says, "High Admiral is the rank of the Military Commander of the Grayson Space Navy." Well duh, an Admiral is the rank of the Military Commander in navies. The rest of the article talks about Wesley Matthews who could have his own page that could say the same thing. Therefore it is "[a] fictional rank whose definition is apparent from name[.]" Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is a mere two days old. We should not expect it to have to be more than a stub but two days after its creation. Look at how this article looked when first created versus its Mario current version. It usually takes time for editors to write and revise good articles. Two days is not a reasonable amount of time to allow readers for something that does not have a deadline. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How are we to find articles that should be deleted if not new page patrol? Random article patrol is to random to be effective and many of the articles that need to be deleted are orphaned, uncategorized, and not marked for clean up. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 18:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

New page patrol is for hoaxes, personal attacks, and copy vios, or otherwise nonsense articles. An article that is a stub and is not an obvious hoax, not a copy vio, not a personal attack deserves time to possible expand. There is no "need" to delete this particular article. We are here to write a comprehensive encyclopedia, not find articles to delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. On March 8th, the same person created new pages for six different classes of ships from the Honorverse. And with comments such as 'We can assume', and '(Note: At this time, the SLN should be considered 2nd class. They don't have anywhere near the firepower represented by a pod-laying ship. This could be subject to change if the SLN woke up and smelled the proverbial coffee.)' I can't recall, but I think there are some more classes. And all the planets. Etc. I think I have every book, but this is getting ridiculous.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That reads more like a case of Wikipedia:SOFIXIT than AfD, though. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

They are all already covered in various other articles. If this isn't, it should be.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Then, that would mean that we would merge and redirect the article without deleting it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, then, the article has no usable information and should be deleted. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no rationale for an outright deletion in this case, i.e. a decsive decision that could benefit the project. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What article would we redirect to? Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Honorverse, List of Rankings, or something. I'm sure we could come up with something reasonable, but again, the young age of the article still strikes me as we should give editors some time to definitively indicate that no sources are to be found before just writing it off. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If an article should not be on Wikipedia why do it matter that that it has only been degrading Wikipedia or a few days instead of years? Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 00:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think stubs actually degrade Wikipedia. We humans have reached a stage in our development where just about anything has some kind of sources on it and as our population continues to grow, so does the segments of the population that finds any random topic or aspect of a larger topic notable. Even if the article never improved, its existence does not somehow detract from an article on say Basset hounds or Napoleon. Because Wikipedia is paperless, we don't have to worry about the same presentational issues that face a book. But even then, you take a printed encyclopedia (say The Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography) and you'll have maybe a page on Alexander or Caesar and only one sentence on some less well-known general, but that doesn't mean that the guy who gets one sentence is necessarily "unencyclopedic" or that the overall quality of that book is rendered less than it would be without that sentence. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that stubs degrade Wikipedia rather that articles that only state the obvious, that can be easy derived from other articles by using common sense, degrade Wikipedia. I can see it now: "Do you know why Wikipedia has over 2.5 million articles?" "No, why" "Because they have articles that only say: 'High Admiral is the rank of the Military Commander of the Grayson Space Navy.'" "Well duh, an Admiral is the rank of the Military Commander in navies. Wikipedia the fraud!"

I'm not too worried about anyone who wants to criticize WIkipedia for having such articles. I'm far more concerned that we do not discourage editors from contributing by deleting their good faith contributions or diminish our ability to catalog human knowledge. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, this isn't even notable within the book series. It's just a fictional job description and doesn't further our understanding. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it differ from other kinds of admirals? If so, it furthers our undertsnading. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Even then the decision would be to merge/redirect without deleting. There is absolutely no compelling reason to delete and certainly no benefit to our project by doing so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This line of argumentation you are using it part of your larger agenda to save all fiction-related articles. As such, it violates the spirit of the arbcom ruling. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that you have a larger agenda to delete all fiction-related articles in violation of the arbcom ruling? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Blast Ulna is clearly not saying that, and I am sure you know it. This argument is ridiculous. The it about the High Admiral should be in the Grayson Space Navy article. It fits there logically and rounds it out and as far as I am concerned, as an Honorverse fan, that works better for me. Now I may have just transgressed against protocal and if so I'll undo it, but Wikipedia:SOFIXIT was mentioned, and so in that spirit (I think)--Doug Weller (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC) I have incorporated the bit about the High Admiral into the Grayson Space Navy article, something which I think it should have included anyway.