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. .. the Delete votes are far more convincing that the others, which apart from JClemens don't appear to amount to anything approaching policy-based Black Kite (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Planets of the Hyperion Cantos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A list of fictional places appearing or mentioned in the Hyperion Cantos, a series of four novels. While the series is notable, this subtopic as such is not covered in independent sources and therefore fails WP:N. The series is also not notable enough to merit coverage at this level of detail, whether as subarticles or as part of the main article (which is why I propose deletion rather than a merger). This sort of travel guidebook-style summary of plot elements is better suited to fan sites, which Wikipedia is not. Per WP:WAF, our coverage of fiction should approach the topic from the point of view of the real world, which this content fails to do, and it is also not evident that it has substantial significance for the novel cycle, its place in science fiction or its reception.  Sandstein  10:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since you explicitly reject the idea of merge. One of the more confusing features of the tales is sorting out the planets from the places (all planets are places, but not all places are planets.) As I read WAF, this is an allowable article (besides, WAF is a guideline, not policy.) There are also short stories in the Hyperion Cantos, btw. htom (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I understand the desire to delete; I noted the probability of that when I first split this off in an attempt to clean up the main article. However, I'm not really clear on Sandstein's assertion that it's not notable enough to be included in even the main article; notability guidelines can help determine whether a subject rates a separate article, but they do not apply to content within articles. Sometimes I wish they did—it would certainly help minimize the number of "Family Guy" and "In popular culture" references—but as it stands, we don't have a forum for rejecting neutral, verifiable information that cites sources (which, in this case, would be the books themselves). I'd say the possibility of a merge has to be on the table here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two-step rationale: 1) per WP:NNC, non-notable content can be included in an article about a notable topic, and 2) per WP:SIZE, WP:SS, WP:UNDUE and the like, it is often appropriate to break out content when it would imbalance an article. This is the same reason we keep lists of not-individually-notable characters, and I see that rationale appropriate to this situation as well. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this amount to WP:INHERITED, which the community has rejected? I understand that subarticles for lists of characters etc. can be necessary for very popular works who do need such coverage (and spinouts for size issues), but in this case the novels are frankly not very notable (although I have read and appreciated them), and the main article is not so large that it couldn't contain such content (although it shouldn't, because it is fancrufty plot summary that would be excessive in scope and would overwhelm the real-world focus all articles about fiction should have).  Sandstein  06:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced this is needed as a standalone article or a section in the parent, but I'd certainly say these novels are pretty notable. Hyperion is a Hugo and Locus winner; Fall of Hyperion a Locus winner and a Hugo and Nebula nominee; Endymion was in consideration for a Locus; and Rise of Endymion was a Locus winner and a Hugo nominee. That aside -- and I realize that means this isn't the place to have this discussion -- to what extent is WP:NOTINHERITED in conflict with WP:SPINOUT? Are sections of a notable article that are divested for page-length reasons bound by the same independent expectations of notability? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete these trivial in-universe details that are more appropriate for fan wikis. Mention the handful of relevant planets at Hyperion Cantos#Setting, the rest appears to be fancruft and to remain so forever (or can someone seriously see this as a fleshed-out featured list with lots of real-world information?). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- this is mostly unsourced, in universe plot summary regarding trivial details. If this stuff were in the main article it could and should be removed or trimmed back severely to avoid flooding the article with a mountain of irrelevant trivia. The argument that non-notable characters and places can be spun out into new articles that inherit notability from the parent work of fiction does not apply in this case. That exception only applies when you have material that aids understanding of the work of fiction, is properly sourced, (ie. different in all regards to the article under discussion) and the only thing preventing it forming a part of the parent article is that it would make the article too long. It's not an end run around WP:N that allows an endless flood of fancruft. Reyk _YO! 21:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment

That exception only applies when you have material that aids understanding of the work of fiction, is properly sourced, (ie. different in all regards to the article under discussion) and the only thing preventing it forming a part of the parent article is that it would make the article too long.

One person's fancruft is another's reference aid. In this case, the author throws the names about, expecting readers to have made connections that are not always obvious. Different in all respects ... but about the same topic and with all different references? Gimme a break, my AGF is creaking. htom (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood me. My point is that material should only be spun out of an article if space concerns are the only reason not to include it in the parent. In this case there are plenty of others: it's poorly sourced, consists entirely of in-universe plot summary, and goes into way too much depth regarding trivial details. This material would be trimmed substantially or removed entirely, as being irrelevant and of very low quality, if it was still in the parent and someone was trying to get it up to GA. So I see no justification for spinning it out. Reyk _YO! 01:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as though it was just spun out yesterday on a whim; it was done more than two years ago, as part of a cleanup project at the parent article. It is not poorly sourced; the books are the sources. It cites its sources poorly, which is not the same thing. Poor citation is not a reason for deleting an article. In fact, citing sources is not even policy, just a guideline. Verifiability is the only requirement for content within an article. So, again - even if the information doesn't merit an article, there's no basis in policy for not allowing it to be merged back into the main article. Regardless of what the outcome of this AfD is, anyone could put that information back into the main article at any time. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 02:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was spun out, then all the information is still in the main article's history somewhere, and we don't need to discuss a merger. And if the cleanup was indeed performed two years ago, then having such a sub-standard stand-alone list around after all this time is a sure sign that (a) the info isn't needed to understand the main article and (b) no further cleanup can be expected. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not that the article is wonderful or even particularly useful; my point was that there is nothing you or I or anyone else can say here that can prevent other users from adding the material back into the main article. AfD does not have that kind of authority. In fact, there is no mechanism for it in all of Wikipedia's policies. If deleted here it can (and quite likely will) be re-added to the parent article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? That's something to be handled at the editorial level by editors, this is AfD. AfD is concerned with articles passing or not passing the notability guidelines, not dealing with hypotheticals that policy does not (yet) have an opinion on. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no kidding. That's exactly my point. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:N & WP:WAF. May wish to consider merging anything useful (to be determined by editor discretion) back into Hyperion Cantos. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong| communicate _ 15:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What's relisting this again going to accomplish? Both sides have had their say. Somebody either delete the article or close the AfD as a no consensus keep. I'd do one or the other myself but I created the article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article deals with very notable characters who list out a combined 30,000 hits on google. I would have said 'merge', but the main article on the movie by Tom Hanks is already too cluttered with trivia. Satanclawz (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you in the right AfD? This article does not deal with any characters, and the main article is about a book series, not a movie (there isn't any, yet.).  Sandstein  15:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Additionally, for the sake of argument, ghits are not an adequate replacement for notability or verifiability. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, pretty sure we can strike this one. I can't tell which article it's meant to be for, but it's definitely not this. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:28, 13 April 2012 (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.