Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twelve Colonies (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 redirect to Battlestar Galactica. Apart from Piotrus and Jclemens, there are almost no serious arguments here, only "votes" or assertions of (non-)notability. Nonetheless, I must give Piotrus's view controlling weight because it is better supported by relevant policies and guidelines. His analysis of Jclemens's sources is not contested, including by Jclemens, leading me to conclude that it is common ground in this discussion that there is not the amount and quality of sources required for an article about this topic in the light of WP:GNG.  Sandstein  09:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Colonies

Twelve Colonies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Minor fictional element with no real-world significance, all sources are limited to plot summaries and other in-universe mentions. For people who want to keep this, please remember that mentions in passing, particularly in plot summaries, are not sufficient. What we need (and I failed to find) are sources discussing real world significance of this fictional concept - inspirations, influences, etc. The fact that this concept is mentioned often in the BSG show(s) doesn't make it notable, we need more than that. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Battlestar Galactica. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep The Verge discussing planetary dynamics, Deseret News on 12 colonies = 12 tribes, Cylons in America appears to cover many aspects of life in the 12 colonies, Journal Article that does society compsrisons. So, that's four, in-depth sources primarily or substantially about the location/society from which BSG originates. There are, needless to say, thousands of simpler mentions. Jclemens (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that it exists on Google doesn't suffice. We need more than a passing mention. The Deseret article is not about 12 colonies, it's an obituary of the story's creator, which mentions a number of fictional elements, and dedicates a single sentence to this fictional element, through granted, it is not just a plot description, but talks about the inspiration for the term. The Verge just notes that the 12 colonies are an interesting solar system, it is pretty much a discussion of the plot. The third source seems to only discuss TC as a plot element, and as such is not particularly helpful - it reads like a Battlestar Galactica Encyclopedia (or wikia). The last source you found seems similar to the second one - I see few sentences about the 12C, but it is pretty much a plot summary. All in all, I can see those sources would allow for maybe a referenced paragraph or two, fine for merging into the BG article section on background/universe, but I am still not convinced about stand-alone notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you didn't find them, and you didn't merge it yourself. You yet again started an AfD without taking responsibility for other options. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did found some of them, and I believed and still do that they don't suffice to make this topic have stand-alone notability. It is a plot element with barely few sentences of real-world significance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you found them, then you should have put them in your nomination. Wikipedia works on consensus, not on adversarialism like a court of law does--or at least it would, if you and others would actually collaborate by putting forth evidence that undermines your position. Since I've never seen you do this, I find it strains AGF to believe that yes, you found everything I did, reviewed them all, didn't mention a single one of them, and decided to AfD this anyways. Or, as we say in medicine, if you don't document it, it didn't happen. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Accusing another editor of lying is not just straining AGF, it is pure NPA. I am not going to engage in discussing editor motivations. If you want to discuss sources, we can continue, otherwise I don't see the point in creating a battleground. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree, accusing another editor of lying is bad form. However, I think you misunderstand what I meant by the medical adage "if you don't document it, it didn't happen". That's not an accusation that you didn't do what you said what you did (which, if you read through my comment again, is NOT what I said you didn't do), but a notation that undocumented effort is pointless on several levels. The most proximate one is that if you did work and didn't report it, you damage the team by forcing other people to re-do work that you did. Secondarily, the patient (article, in this case) can be harmed by the omission of details about what was done. In this case, that means an article has potential, and you state that you withheld evidence that supported that potential. Only in a distant third case does it even come down to believability, that without contemporaneous notes there's no evidence that what was said to have been done after the fact had actually been done. For all those three reasons, if you do work and don't document it, it's arguably worse than not doing the work in the first place. Likewise, for all the same reasons, doing research in an AfD and not reporting it is against consensus and collegiality, and would fit well alongside the other anti-consensus behaviors listed at WP:TE. Jclemens (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge in material from other articles. Artw (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Idea I suggest creating a separate article dedicated to the fictional universe, called Fictional universe of Battlestar Galactica, and merge anything BSG-related that doesn’t warrant separate articles there, Twelve Colonies included. — NickTheRed37 (0x54 · 0x43) 16:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That would appear to be an appropriate compromise to me at least. I would be interested in hearing discussion on this idea. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aoba47: The problem here is that an article collecting what would be in effect non-notable content does not gain notability itself. You cannot combine X-number of non-notable topics and argue that the resulting article is notable. We do tend to ignore this problem with lists, but the universe of articles are really "asking for it". No strong prejudice to such a merge, but then we may meet here again... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Piotrus: We would have to cross that bridge when we get there. There appears to be some coverage on the Battlestar Galactica universe as a whole so a list may be appropriate so we will just have to see how that shakes out in the future, depending on whether or not users will actually look for sources and add them into the article. Either way, I do not believe that the article up for discussion passes notability standards and should either be redirected to a new list/article on the universe or the already existing page on the television show. I have no preference for one or the other, and I will completely understand if the closer for this AfD decides to redirect to the show page (if redirect is decided of course) rather than create a somewhat dubious new list or article. I hope this response helps somewhat, and I greatly appreciate that you asked me directly. I have to be honest, and say that some of the behavior in this discussion was a little disappointing. Aoba47 (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect either to a new article entitled Fictional universe of Battlestar Galactica or to the already existing Battlestar Galactica. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of merge to a new Fictional universe of Battlestar Galactica. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Battlestar Galactica, or, failing that, Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Battlestar Galactica... or delete. Not notable (and this is coming from a fan of Battlestar Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Fictional universe of Battlestar Galactica per above. The main franchise page is too long to hold this information.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Rename there's enough content and notability for a stand-alone page on the in-universe mythos of Battlestar Galactica, and this appears to be the best one. No preference as to keep v. rename. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2017 (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.