Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orion's Arm

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 Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orion's Arm

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

Apparently non-notable fictional universe. This page has been around a while, but the subject doesn't seem to actually be notable; I'm unable to find any coverage in independent reliable sources. They've published a book, but even that doesn't seem to have attracted any attention - I can't find any coverage beyond blog mentions and press releases. (Note that it only has 1 review on Amazon.com.) If anyone can demonstrate the notability of this project, please do so. Robofish (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Google returns 72,900 hits. Against a Diamond Sky was only published at the end of August, in other words only 1 1/2 months ago. It is a bit unfair to expect a mass of Amazon reviews in such a short time. Google book search also shows several references in print (which I have added to the page). In any case, a website and online community's notability does not have to be judged by the standards of print references. It is true that the entry could be better served in terms of citations/footnotes, but that is no reason to nominate a page for deletion M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or delete without prejudice. Reliable references are a problem. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Your use of "Apparently" seems to mean that you aren't familiar enough with it to judge whether it's notable or not. As User:M Alan Kazlev points out above, your research standards are apparently misapplied. --Noclevername (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OA is mentioned as inspiration for other settings and RPGs, notably Eclipse Phase, published by Catalyst games (no good ref - I suspect it's in the credits - I got this from personal discussion with the designers at GenCon 2009).
Some of the complaints (mostly historic ones on the talk page) about reliable references seem to conflate attempts at substantiating the science behind Orion's Arm with its status as a fictional universe; that is, its scientific and other setting claims do not need substantiation, so much as they need reference to others discussing them. In line with WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, reference to Orion's Arm's text describing its setting is insufficient (as this is primary source material with indeterminate authorship), but links to other bodies discussing its setting are. Examples of this might be the extremely large publicly available archive of listserv traffic (all of which is verifiable by virtue of being ascribed to particular authors). Regardless - what is required from references in this case is verification that Orion's Arm makes these claims, not that these claims are scientifically true, probable, or even sensible (it's a fictional universe, after all).
As for notability, Wikipedia:Notability points out that notability need not necessarily imply fame, and goes on to lay out specific criteria. Concern over Orion's Arm notability boils down to a lack of citable references discussing its activities from reliable and independent sources. In particular, its own promotional and self-publicizing activities are not sufficient evidence for its notability, and mention by external sources would be necessary. As an insider, I know there's an interview / article coming up fairly soon in H+ magazine, and I believe there's been previous articles and interviews over the years. Lack of these references brings concern to its notability. However, it's my perception that this is due to a lack of thorough referencing rather than actual lack of notability - the setting is by far the largest fictional construct exploring the modern Transhumanism movement, consists of numerous subgroups, spin-offs, and projects, and is cited by some (again, personal communication only) as a significant source of inspiration in other, better published material in the same area.
I strongly support keeping this article, but agree that perhaps there should be more emphasis and exploration of the project's impact on science fiction and transhumanism than on the particular peculiarities of science within the setting. -- Xorgnz (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was searching for Orion Arm in Google and this article appeared. This is cheap publicity stunt. Pick up famous term, create article on Wikipedia and get famous. Anyone searching for Orion's Arm will click this article. It does mislead readers like me. This is new kind of spam. So please delete it. Viraan (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Searching for "orion arm" Gets two direct links to the fiction site (not through Wikipedia), one wikilink to Orion Arm (the galactic structure), one wikilink to the article listed in this AfD, and many more links about the galactic structure. The presence or absence of this Wikipedia article is unlikely to affect the list of pages returned by Google, given this breakdown. Searching for "orion's arm" yields two direct links to the fictional site, one link to Wikipedia's article about it, and a host of other links to the fiction site. The presence or absence of a Wikipedia article is again unlikely to affect this breakdown. Long story short, your complaint seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur (Wikipedia's article is not causing the problem you describe). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Seconded. Search for anything that wikipedia would consider "notable" on google and you almost always find the wikipedia article among the first results. I don't think blaming wikipedia's success is a valid argument --graham228221 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Agreed. Also, the claim that the name choice is a cynical attempt to manipulate wikipedia doesn't hold given that the project has been around for almost a decade (predating wikipedia). Xorgnz (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It's among the most notable of the non-commercial transhumanist fictional works. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has a membership of well over 1,000, has been around for almost a decade and is well-known enough in sci-fi circles (especially online) to be considered notable IMHO. Anders Sandberg has contributed significantly to the project in the past.--graham228221 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also, a number of other articles link to Orion's Arm. Collaborative fiction, Dyson Sphere and many "... in fiction" articles are some examples. It has also spawned it's own articles, specifically related to terms used in the setting (Archailects and Transapient). --graham228221 (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Helpful in buckling Orion's Belt I suppose. Mandsford (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only independent published reference I see in the article to establish notability is that it is recommended in a teacher's manual. The sort of thing that would establish this topic's notability would be in-depth coverage in one of the gaming magazines out there. The existence of references that could support notability would not surprise me in the least. But until such references are uncovered, perhaps this topic isn't ready for an article just quite yet. -Verdatum (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Based on this, though, deletion seems a little strong - merely flagging the lack of citations as a problem being worked on seems more appropriate. Perhaps trimming back the article to only information that is cited and passes WP:NOR and WP:N would be appropriate, too. --Xorgnz (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't find any such sources on Google. As new evidence: the fact that Against A Diamond Sky has been out for over a month, and I can't find any reviews by published critics, print or online. There is reasonable suspicion that such sources do not exist. Deletion isn't all that "strong" a move anyway. If it's deleted and recreated with proper establishment of notability, it is pretty easy to do a "history-only undelete" to retrieve and merge any beneficial deleted content. -Verdatum (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Klimov (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain the reasoning behind your opinion? This isn't a vote, ya know :) -Verdatum (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My opinions seem to be very similar to the ones expressed by user graham... on October, 16 (see above). Additionally I'd like to express a kind of disillusionment or something like that. This deltetionistas secret agenda, heh heh, seems to be heading to the borders of funny. This is not the first article with such deletion request that seems to be only strange. There seems to be a need to do something, to reformulate policies maybe... Otherwise more and more people, myself including probably, would start turning to other venues for sensible activities. All the best, Victor --Klimov (talk) 19:27, 21 October 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.