Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water empire

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 of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 05:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water empire

Almost textbook WP:OR as it stands. Several strands collected into a "new" idea. There may in fact be an article in this, but with a different title and different sources. ~~Delete.~~ brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Georgewilliamherbert for finding a target... merge. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's pretty obvious that we are dealing with a science fiction theme here. As such, the article is no different than many of the 131 articles in category:science fiction themes. A good example of what this might become is Parallel universe. -- JJay 13:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do review the link to "original research" above. Unless a theme is noted in a Wikipedia:Reliable source than regardless of how "obvious" it is it cannot satisfy WP:V. As always, I'm happy to see sources provided. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite your pedantism, I am fully aware of wikipedia policy. There is no need to bombard people with links. If references were your concern, you might have started with some of the templates we have available in that respect. Oh, and please do review WP:Civil. -- JJay 15:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's "pedantry". —rodii 00:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC) sorry, I couldn't resist[reply]
    - Well it's in my 1913 webster, didn't realise it was obsolete. [1]. -- JJay 01:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was a joke, JJay... only a pedant would correct "pedantism" to... oh, never mind. rodii
keep patently obvious as a sci-fi theme, or do I need to get a credible source to verifie that the books I read are actually published science fiction.--Pypex 16:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The source you need is one that verifies that the concept "water empire" has been used in this way before it appeared in this article. Otherwise you're writing a (small) work of criticism, not an encyclopedia article. That's what "no original research" means. It doesn't seem like a breathtakingly original idea, so there ought to be something, under some name. Might require a rename if a source is found.—rodii 00:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Hydraulic empire, which lists historical context and origin of the term. Georgewilliamherbert 02:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! So that's a merge, I guess. —rodii 03:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Clear merge candidate. Even if nothing were to be merged (which seems unlikely, given the idea's currency in science fantasy) we'd want to keep the redirect to Hydraulic empire. --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 3 February 2006 (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.