Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydran Kingdom (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. There was not one good argument to keep; "what's the rush", "I found it useful" and "it was nominated quite recently so this doesn't count" are not compelling reasons. The latter is particularly unhelpful as the previous AFD was closed as "no consensus", not "keep". Nobody has wanted or been able to prove notability, provide any references for notability, show how the article passes WP:FICTION, or illustrate how the article is not an in-universe repetition of the various Star Trek game articles. Neıl ☎ 15:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydran Kingdom[edit]

The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Fleet game articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It is less than a month since this article was last nominated and nothing new is being said. Per Repeat nominations such hasty relisting is considered disruptive. Colonel Warden 23:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still fails Wikipedia policies such as verification and notability, and also WP:FICTION, and has shown no improvement before, during, or since nomination. Judgesurreal777 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no deadline and WP:NOEFFORT is not a reason to delete. The Star Fleet Universe is quite notable and the current article structure predates current WP:FICTION guidelines. What's the rush? Colonel Warden 00:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....I see no rush, but a request for notability to be established for this article. If you can say there is a very good chance you can uncover something to prove its notability, we can wait, but otherwise, what are we waiting for? Judgesurreal777 01:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Star Trek. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No third-party sources that illuminate the real-world significance of this topic. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge : Merge into Star Fleet Universe after a complete rewrite Shoessss | Chat 13:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable to the star trek universe, there isn't one article you could really merge it successfully into. --Neon white (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But to be notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, it has to assert a greater notability than that, see WP:FICTION. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just think the articles is good enough quality and valuable info to remain. --Neon white (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then that's just your opinion, and isn't based on policy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "in universe" only means talking about it as if it were real, the way fan fiction does, the way typical of fan sites. Discussing it as an artifact is discussing it as existing in the real world. DGG (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but what of its lack of notability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no new arguments from last call. (Plus I like it, Hydrans were my favorite race in SFB, yes I know _that_ isn't a good reason, but I didn't *know* the stuff in the article. It's why these articles should exist here!) Hobit (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just like last time, those who would keep the article are ignoring the nominating text which asks for ran assertion of notability that has not occurred. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable game-cruft. WP:GAMEGUIDE --Jack Merridew 10:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To quote: "Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Less then a month, during the holidays, is not a lot of time. I understand if you say it doesn't fit guidelines, but it was kept after the last debate, so you need to give us time to repair the issue. Otherwise you can just keep relisting this articles over and over and we will never have time to work on them. Please note that almost all of the articles in this catagory were nominated last round, and there are only a few of us that can work on a solution. Iarann (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...If there is no notability, there is nothing to "Work on", its just going to remain as it is, as it has done for quite a while with no improvement. If you assure me that there is proof somewhere of notability and you or others need time to get it, that's one thing, but this article has had lots of time to improve and hasn't at all, and though that is not a reason for deletion, it can be indicative of a lack of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to prove notability we need sources. I need time to obtain sources to improve the article. That lots of time to improve you are talking about took place before it was tagged and then put up for deletion the first time. We have not had a lot of time to do anything for the article since then. If you check policy, it is standard to allow articles that survive AFD some time to get worked on. Especially since the last time this article was nominated, it was nominated with 4 or 5 other articles of equal size, and they all need work. Nominating multiple articles for deletion every month slows down any effort to repair the issue. If you look on the talk page of the main universe page, you will note I have pushed for a merge of this and the other articles, but I will need help. If you would like to help you are welcome to join me, but if you are just nominating various articles for deletion, please give us at least a couple of months. There is no urgency to delete, and it is hard to expect a large amount of work to get done during the holidays. Iarann (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Astonishingly, not a single argument to keep this has in any way dealt with the fact that this is a blatant violation of our policies and guidelines governing fictional material. Keeping this because one editor likes and others think it is too early to renominate is absurd. Eusebeus (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2007 (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.