Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wars in A Song of Ice and Fire (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 delete. Individual editors have raised arguments to delete, merge, or redirect, but they have not received support and have been refuted by other editors. On the other side, there is a quite a firm consensus to delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wars in A Song of Ice and Fire

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

This is a almost five year old major WP:FAN article that has several issues. WP:NOTE and WP:EVENT, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:PLOT to name a few. Click23 (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete as excessive fan trivia which fails WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Tourneys in A Song of Ice and Fire was recently deleted based on a similar rationale. (AFD). On a sidenote, WP:EVENT is not relevant for fictional events. Yoenit (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:EVENT was listed because in the first AFD another editor stated something about fictional events could possibly be notable, so I just wanted to cover all of the bases.Click23 (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per the same rationale as last time around. It appears that the nominator did that, but it was reverted prior to this nomination. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the first AFD this not have enough responses to justify a true consensus. While I did try a redirect the first time around, the arguments that Yoenit on the talk page convinced me this is the proper way to handle this article. Click23 (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand this redirecting desire. How is this (or the tourney article) a useful redirect to A Song of Ice and Fire? I reverted Click when he turned it into a redirect as it was just deleting the article without having to go through AFD. Merging this article is the same as redirecting it, for all important information is already in the plot summaries of the individual novels. Yoenit (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- excessive fan trivia and in-universe plot summary. Borderline original research, since it depends entirely on the editors' impressions of the primary source. That is just one of many good reasons why we don't encourage fiction-related articles based entirely on the work itself. There is no usable content to be merged anywhere, and the title is an unlikely search term so would be useless as a redirect. Reyk _YO! 00:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially an extended and excessive plot summary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has not significantly improved since last nomination, indicating that it's futile to look for sources that can WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I am open to persuasion, I thought that standard Wikipedia practice allowed, even encouraged articles like this. I would also like to see some more detailed argument from Click23. For example, he cites WP:PLOT which, in fact, states that "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is usually appropriate as part of this coverage." This seems like a perfectly reasonable plot summary to me. David.Kane (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You must have completely misunderstood WP:PLOT. Have another look at it, especially the bolded part which states wikipedia is not "Plot-only description of fictional works", as that is exactly what this article is. There is no "discussing the reception and significance of notable works" anywhere in the article. Yes, "a concise plot summary is usually appropriate as part of this coverage." Notice the italicized words, as the plot description in this article is neither concise nor a part. If you want an example of what is meant by a concise plot summary, look at for example the Uncle Tom's Cabin article. Yoenit (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2010 (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.