Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space warfare in fiction (2nd nomination)

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 per WP:SNOW – Pea ceNT 08:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space warfare in fiction

I am proud to announce my first proceduaral AfD nomination on Wikipedia. A user tried to list this article on Afd, but apparently didn't know how. It was deleted once before per WP:OR (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space warfare in fiction). I abstain. YechielMan 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No reason is available for the nomination by the anon IP who attempted to list, nor is this the same article that was previously discussed. It's clearly not OR, and is fully referenced from start to finish. CiaranG 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably speedy keep per the reasons given by CiaranG. This is referenced and fairly obviously expandable; judging from the last deletion debate, the current text is not what was deleted back then. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't. Uncle G 21:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I nominated the first and second versions of this article for deletion. They were quite different from this third version. Unlike the first two versions ~~(the nominator seems to be referring to the speedy deletion -recreation of deleted material I assume- of the second in their nomination),~~ this version has sources that may qualify as secondary sources (see WP:RS#Types of source material). While I still think the article is unencylopedic cruft and essentially an OR essay, I will abstain from !voting. Pete.Hurd 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recommended Delete in the previous afd, but that was a very different article to this one. This article appears to have much better references and less original analysis and original research. I'm not in a good position to really delve into this article's details and such at the moment, so I'm going to abstain for now on keep vs delete. But I will say that at least at first glance I'm more inclined to keep this version of the article than the one I seem to remember reading last time around. Dugwiki 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly not a repost as it is different text with sources that aleviate the prior concern (OR essay with no secondary sources). Should be kept (possibly speedily) as no argument for deletion has been presented. If the article keeps improving deleting is clearly unwarranted and if not it can be discussed when someone is willing to take the time to make a reasoned argument that it (still) violates policy. Eluchil404 11:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like it might be merged into an sf themes article such as space opera, but there's enough verifiable material which is of interest in a historical discussion of sf themes that it should not be deleted. Mike Christie (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs expanding to include more context (e.g. a more thorough history of the development of the genre, common criticisms of the depictions, etc.) but otherwise nothing wrong with this article. JulesH 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It should be noted that "interstallar war" is illegal in most bathrooms. — RJH (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2007 (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.