Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1632 places

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 delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1632 places

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1632 institutions, this is a non-notable, pile of plots from an alternate universe. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have sources from other notable people i suppose. Str8cash (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All those sources are from the same universe of books and fan fiction. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely in-universe. Strangely, there does not appear to be a 1632 wiki at wikia to transwiki to. Ray^Talk 21:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Eric Flint wiki though. Already left a message for anybody there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ricky. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 04:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 06:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 06:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 06:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for preference or (possibly) merge back to 1632 series. If kept, it should be renamed to reflect the refernece to the novel series not the year 1632. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kepp a list of locations is a perfectly reasonable article to have for a fictional universe, and the 1632 series is a multi-author shared universe with a lot of published titles. 76.66.202.123 (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above poster. There is nothing wrong with listing places in a notable fictional series. It is fairly crucial for understanding the plot. Dream Focus 10:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against starting over if need be following WP:WAF. That is, only recreate this article IF it is to document the fictional world and NOT to repeat plot that should belong in the book articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, however I have some comments. I agree that the 1632 places article is not necessary, no heartburn with that. But I wish that the several 1632-article deletion votes that have jetted through had been grouped, because I was only notified about one of them, and some were already closed - after only a week allowed for discussion. Don't know about you, but I don't log in here every day. Is that required in order to be heard? :-(

The 1632 writers article was voted to be merged into the 1632(novel) article. Unfortunately, the novel was written by just one person - Eric Flint. The dozens of people formerly listed in the now-defunct 1632 writers article produced stories for 20+ ebooks in The Grantville Gazettes series. (Beware, the first book in the Gazette series is called The Grantville Gazette (with no distinguishing number after it), and has a separate wiki article like the other Gazette books.)

The 1632 Plot Threads article was voted to be merged into the 1632(novel) article. Again, unfortunately, the novel touches on only one major plot thread, not all the plot threads. They apply to the entire series, both the novels and the gazettes. They belonged properly in the 1632 series article.

So let's go peek at the 1632 series article. New problem! Here's the first box at the top of the 1632 series page:

"This article may be too long to comfortably read and navigate. Please consider splitting content
into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject."

Is it helpful for us to be clobbering separate articles, if the main series article where they should be going is already too long? It SAYS make separate articles, lol!

Can someone tell me where to find other deletion nominations for other 1632 subjects? I get the feeling that others may close before I find out about them. -.-

Again, I'm okay on the deletion of 1632 places. And I heartily agree that a lot of pruning is needed for this group of articles. Many of them are unwieldy or unfinished, and maintaining or updating them is difficult. But I am worried that decisions are possibly being made in the dark here. :(

Tkech (talk) 13:11, 4 August 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.