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.  Sandstein  06:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unification War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article about a fictional war plot element that violates Wikipedia's policies about writing about fiction. I have nominated it separately because it cites an in-universe guide to the series by the creator of the original work (how's that for "independent"?!). Savidan 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of independent notability of this plot element. No sign that any serious, independent, reliable analysis has been done of this plot element from a real-world source. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 19:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Woulda thunk this would've been scooped up when all the Firefly character articles were truncated and whatnot. No evidence of real-world notability. No references. --EEMIV (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep or merger at the least. WP has no accept policy for writing about fiction, though there are many people who think it is what they would like it to me. A RS for the plain description of a work can and usually should be the work itself. The detail is not excessive, and none of the arguments about notability hold if the article is merged. And the nomination gives no reason given why it should not be at least a redirect. There's a good explanation for that: there is no possibly valid reason. Anything anyone might want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in Wikipedia DGG (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not meeting inclusion threshold. @EEMIV: I don't know the CharHist but will note that weeds grow back unless you get the the root. Jack Merridew 09:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Jack, are you arguing or implying that you would like to delete the main articles on fictions also, since they are the root.? DGG (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not what I meant. While I don't like many of them either (commercial fiction mill stuff;), coverage at that level is appropriate: they are often notable works. The ”root“ that I was referring to is the notion that all the minor elements warrant much coverage. I'm all for a compromise about setting the bar to inclusion at a well defined height. My view is that it needs to be high enough to actually serve as a bar to much of the so-called content that is so contentious. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:54, 19 July 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.