Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire and Ice (Warriors)

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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Ice (Warriors)

This article does not meet WP:FICT. I do realize that this has been up for deletion once before, but I would like to point out that many votes in that case were from the WikiProject for this series. The reasoning in that AfD for keep was that it was cause for clean-up, not deletion. Since then, no one has "cleaned up" the article to meet WP:FICT for one simple reason: the book does not have any independent notability. Corvus coronoides _talk 01:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: also nominating the following articles together for the same reasons as above.

Delete: Little to no work has been done since the last AFD, and it doesn't meet general notability. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree to everything said, but as long as the page is transwikied to Warriors Wiki, then it can be deleted. §ροττεδςταr^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and per Seicer. This is all plot and not enough information about the notability of the book. Metros (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think if they are transwikied and the Warriors Wiki is linked from on the main Warriors page it will provide anyone who wants to see plot summaries with a way to access them. :) Corvus coronoides _talk 03:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grumble: These are not fictional books. They have real, objective existance that can be verified. WP:FICT does not apply. The relevant notability guideline is WP:BK. (Also, could someone please supply a link to the previous AfD? I would like to see the arguments there before offering an opinion here.) —Quasirandom (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Horribly confused It's listed as a fantasy book and, as near as I can tell, is written from the point of view of (or in terms of the adventures of, at any rate) mythical cats. This has real, objective existance behind it? Second the request for a link to previous AfD; gut reaction is delete because Wikipedia is not for plot summaries, but there is a history here. Ψν^Psi_nu 04:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What Quasirandom is saying (I believe) is that WP:FICT is a guideline for notability of elements within fiction whereas WP:BK is the guidelines for works of fiction. Metros (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is correct. If being whacked over the head by the subject of the article would hurt, then WP:FICT does not apply. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Had an edit conflict but was going to say something similar. The books are real, you can buy them, the fact that they're books about a fictional subject doesn't move them to WP:FICT like a character that only exists in a work of fiction.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted i haven't seen a link to the previous afd arguements, but on the surface, looks like a notable work. not a way to reference, but comes right up on amazon. Looks more like an article(s) that still needs cleanup, but not deletion.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Previous AFD although it looks as if canvassing was done prior due to the overwhelmingly strong favor of keeping the article from those involved in the related WikiProject, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather strong accusation. Isn't it just as likely that editors who belonged to the projects agreed with each other?--Cube lurker (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was this thread on the talk page of the main article that begged editors to vote keep. Not fully canvassing, but very similar in nature. Metros (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as far as I can tell, each volume on its own does not meet WP:BK. However, as a series perhaps they'd be best off merged to List of Warriors books or a similar article? Lankiveil (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: They require cleanup not deletion, and Warriors is notable enough ^DAVID _CAT 14:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But they've needed clean-up since the last AFD on these which was in May, so over 7 months ago. When will these articles be cleaned up? Metros (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous discussion, merge/redirect per Lankiveil also possible . Catchpole (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment "Warriors is notable enough." According to WP:BK, its not.

The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. Nope
The book has won a major literary award. Nope
The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country. Nope
The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. Nope
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources. No again.

Also pointing out that for the previous AfD - I'm not accusing anyone of canvassing, but the simple fact that the majority of the voters were from the WikiProject is at least somewhat biased. If more votes had come from those outside the Warriors WikiProject, I would have been more hesitant to nominate these for deletion again. The articles themselves could be merged to Warriors (novel series), but as Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries I think deletion is more appropriate. Corvus coronoides _talk 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to previous discussion Corvus coronoides _talk 15:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a best-selling series of books from a major publisher fall foul of a wikipedia notability guideline, I would suggest it is the guideline that needs to be changed. Catchpole (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best-selling series already as a page devoted to the series. See Warriors (novel series). The pages for the individual books are nothing but plot summary, which again, what Wikipedia is not. If the articles required clean-up, then why haven't they been cleaned up? Because the books are not notable enough. Also see here for a previous AfD on one of the books from the series that ended up deleted. Corvus coronoides _talk 15:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not notable, then who set up the Wikia project? Catchpole (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, published by an imprint of Harper Collins. The target demographic of these novels is probably badly represented on Wikipedia; I can't imagine we'd target the novels of R.A. Salvatore. One of the books, The Darkest Hour (Warriors), has some review information; similar stuff likely exists for the others.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If similar reviews exist, why haven't they been added in the seven months since the last AfD? Corvus coronoides _talk 17:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because we're hopeless when it comes to venturing off Google.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So basically, the AfD will fail, the article will not be improved upon, and we'll be stuck with something that is again non-noteworthy? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We'll be 'stuck' with articles, which, like all articles, are under construction. Just what is the problem? --Nydas^(Talk) 19:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Lankiveil. If they can't demonstrate notability individually, or if just noone is willing to spend some time to do so, a merge into a book series article sounds like a good middle ground in the meantime. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
either Merge or Transwiki. And if we Transwiki, can it get done through Wikia Annex like it's suposed to this time? I have a ton of stuff crammed on my Userpage waiting for me to get time to transfer it becuase of the last "Transwiki" (I should just be greatful it got saved at all, really). Kitsufox^{(Fox's Den)} 20:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am willing to try and find reviews for each of these books and put them on the articles. As of now, only Into the Wild (Warriors) and The Darkest Hour (Warriors) have reviews, but I'll try to add more to other articles as fast as I can. Shrewpelt (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question If you are willing to find reviews for these books, why was this not done after the last AfD? How are we to know that it won't happen again, and we will again have non-notable articles seven months from now? Corvus coronoides _talk 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer Actually, I hadn't heard of Wikipedia at the time these articles were last nominated for AFD. This time, there will be notable articles! I just did Fire and Ice (Warriors). Shrewpelt (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for actually addressing the concerns, Shrewpelt. I really would hate to delete the articles just because no one was willing to find info on them. Corvus coronoides _talk 17:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think deleting thems a bit extreme Gnomerat (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FICT, and seems only to survive on wiki due to a fanbase voting to keep it. Mayalld (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2008 (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.