Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sardaukar

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 merge to Organizations of the Dune universe. Seems pretty clear that the notability guidelines are not met here - "it's no less useful than other similar articles" is not enough to defeat a notability concern, and it appears that the Google Scholar search does not actually provide good sources. Note that due to the concerns about WP:OR the merge should probably be somewhat selective; in particular the material sourced to the works themselves will need due care. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sardaukar

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

this article about a fictional subject cites no secondary reliable sources WP:RS are required to WP:V verify its general notability per WP:GNG. The subject of the article may therefore be unsuitable for a standalone article as it may lack WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources. AadaamS (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's no less useful than the other articles about the Dune universe.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTUSEFUL, usefulness is not a criterion which determines the general notability of a subject to merit a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Countering the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is a more relevant point to make imo. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Organizations of the Dune universe, as with Mentat. I volunteer to perform the merge if that is the final outcome.— TAnthony^Talk 14:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every single source cited in the article so far is a work of fiction. There is no factual work cited as a source anywhere. The article itself consists entirely of Wikipedia editors' collective original firsthand analyses of these works of fiction, with each analysis citing an entire book as its source, because (fairly obviously) verifiability is expected to be ″read the books and you will form the same unpublished conclusions″.
Thinking that Dune is pretty well analysed by people, and so factual sources must exist, I went looking. To my surprise, I couldn't find any. I can find a small amount about Salusa Secundus, relating it to Gamma Piscium. It's not really enough for a whole article on that subject, and that is more than I can find in any factual work about this subject. It just hasn't been analysed and documented.
It is not possible to write an article on this subject without violating our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Should probably be merged into the article stated above, no point keeping a standalone article that is basically fancruft. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please take a look at the scholarly articles shown in this Google Scholar search for analysis of the topic. And for your amusement, look at this document about securities fraud and guess where the company name "Sardaukar Holdings" came from. I think the company was named by an investment executive who read Dune. Eastmain (talk • contribs)
- I took a look and saw in the first five an article on the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, an article from fandom.com which is Wikia's new name, an article with 1 sentence on this subject that is actually about women's rôles, and an article that is not accessible to me. So I think that the onus is on you to actually cite stuff rather than make the usual vague handwave. A search engine query is not a citation. Uncle G (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Organizations of the Dune universe - Per above. While the organization does come up in searches, none of the results are actually in-depth discussion about the group themselves. They are mainly only described in terms of their role in the plot of the books. A Merge to the general "Organizations" article is the better choice here. Rorshacma (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, and no one has attempted to really improve the article with decent sources for years. If we merge, there is nothing stopping an editor in the near or far future from doing the research and recreating the article to meet our standards for a standalone. For now, however, I think a merge of key info into the list of organizations is appropriate, and any improvement can begin there.— TAnthony^Talk 23:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge: The lack of significant coverage, and WP:OR with synthesis, are more valid reasoning than fancruft. WP:OTHERSTUFF seems to be brought up regularly and just as regularly advised that it is not a good point at AFD. I notice the target article is B-class and I would have concerns that a merge could be effected without degrading that article. Otr500 (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm failing to see the OR or synthesis in this article. A published work of fiction is a perfectly valid source for its own plot elements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes but I think the point is that only having primary sources does not help the topic meet the criteria of WP:GNG.— TAnthony^Talk 14:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - That wasn't the point I was making. I was merely questioning the validity of the allegations of OR and synthesis. Different issue from whether this is a valid standalone article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: When I see an article, fiction or not, where there are actually only two sources that contains a large amount of content, that includes a section with a Wikipedia reference like to Dune Messiah (with a large plot summary and only two actual sources) --AND content in the article that states "The Sardaukar do not appear in Dune Messiah (1969)...", that I did not find in the sources, I see this as WP:OR. This is just one instance and I could point out more. A concept of Wikipedia is to use what is found in sources (and cite them) and not interpret the sources or make assertions or assumptions not supported by sources. Many of these articles have these very large plot summaries, that is oftentimes totally unsourced, or lacking inline citations to support inclusion, so that is why I commented on concerns of WP:OR and possibly that content draws from more than one source but makes a conclusion not actually found in any sources. If I was in error with this I will stand corrected but on the face of it that is how it seems to me. Otr500 (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, a published work of fiction is a perfectly valid and reliable source for its own plot elements. It is not OR to use it as such. It would be ludicrous if a piece of information was OR if cited from the original source work but not OR if someone else had simply repeated it in another reliable source. A complete failure of common sense. A plot summary is by definition sourced from the work in which it appears; is that not blatantly obvious? I have seen this before: some editors do not seem to realise that a work of fiction - book, film, TV programme or whatever - is a source in and of itself for its own content. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we don't require citations for plot summary that isn't interpretive because yes, the work itself is an accepted source. I think what Otr500 is getting at is that we sometimes include details that may not be notable or consequential enough to include. Like obviously "The Sardaukar do not appear in Dune Messiah" is technically OR since there isn't an external source that makes this fact notable. I wouldn't expect this to be mentioned in the Dune Messiah plot summary itself. But considering that this article is about the Sardaukar, and the primary source supports the fact that the army is not present in the book, it seems relevant. That said, there is definitely some stuff that should be excised. I've already come up with a condensed version to use if we merge to the list, see User:TAnthony/sandbox#Sardaukar.— TAnthony^Talk 15:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not OR. It's simply a statement of fact that could be ascertained by reading the book. Stating that an organisation doesn't appear in a particular book in a series in which it otherwise often does appear is hardly OR and I'm mystified as to why anyone would think it was. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I think it's fine in this article. But the Sardaukar really only feature in Dune itself, so one could argue that their absence is not notable in this context. Mentioning this in the plot summary of the Dune Messiah article, for example, is sort of like mentioning "Paul does not appear in this novel" in the plot summary of God Emperor of Dune. This is not notable info in the context of that novel. In the case of the GoT character Jon Snow, his absence from A Feast for Crows is established as notable because it is mentioned in reliable sources like this one. But I think I've taken us off on a tangent because this particular factoid is not the problem with this article. The lack of external sources discussing the Sardaukar makes the current version of this article WP:JUSTPLOT, and there are other crufty elements (sourced to the novels) and borderline POV/OR phrasing.— TAnthony^Talk 17:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Organizations of the Dune universe as above, i see that at the moment none of the sources are reliable, even The Dune Encyclopedia was coauthored by Herbert (see here), it looks like way back in the dim, dusty past, well march 2003 anyway:)) when WP notability wasn't so strict(?), Justin Johnson created the article (along with a few others that may also need looking at?). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2019 (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.