Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treecat

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 due to insufficient sourcing. MBisanz ^talk 05:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treecat

Entirely unreferenced in-universe trivia and plot summary. No assertion of notability. Google/Google Books searches yield only primary sources, wiki(a) and fan sites. Article and list fail WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:PLOT, WP:IINFO. --EEMIV (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I think the nominator's hit the nail on the head. You can't justify articles like these with only primary sources, and I can't find any proper ones either. Reyk _YO! 06:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - somewhere. Possibly List of planets in the Honorverse#S? The articles on this particular fantasy series aren't very well structured, but I'm not familiar with the books (and, on reading the Treecat article, I don't think I want to be) so can't really suggest how to improve this issue. Tevildo (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel this article has potential. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I voted both keep and merge (below) because both are acceptable to me. Debresser (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See!? I found a real world influence of treecats (apart from the forum username), and added it to the article. And I am sure this is only the beginning: Asimov also became famous slowly. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fame has nothing to do with it. Neither does Asimov, in fact. Sources, for this subject, count. Did you find anything to support the vast gobbets of unsourced analysis and factual claims in this article, from statememts about the sizes of these things to analysis of their sense of humour? Uncle G (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those can be found. There is no original research here, just bringing together information, which is an editors job. The problem is locating the source for all the things. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And my example of Asimov was more relevant than you make it seem. Because we are building an encyclopedia here, and if something needs to be here, because it has potential, than we should be bold and ignore a few rules. Debresser (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) about notability guidelines for fiction: "However, note that strict application of these guidelines to fictional subjects is controversial, and does not enjoy a clear consensus". I'd like to as for a keep for this article on this ground also. Especially since the recently proposed guideline there hasn't been accepted, and further research seems to suggest other criteria, e.g. inherited notability (as in this case, where notability can be inherited from the Honorverse books). Debresser (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone's pointed toward WP:FICT -- in its absence, we have WP:GNG. The notion that notability is inherited is specious. --EEMIV (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Debresser, and per ~150k Google hits. Many of Honorverse concpets are not notable and should be merged or transwikified, granted. This one is, undoubtedly, one of the biggest exceptions. PS. One thing that we could consider is to merge the list of treecats into treecat article, or the list of Honorverse characters.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those 150K google hits quickly degenerate into cat scratching trees and other things unrelated to this topic -- that's why I pointed toward the same search in my deletion rationale. Beyond that, the ones that actually relate to this H'verse topic are flickr pictures, Wikipedia mirrors, and fan sites. This doesn't establish notability. --EEMIV (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excessive in-universe detail. Apparently part of a very large Honorverse walled garden on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the list into the list of characters article, the article into the glossary article, and transwiki to the Honorverse wiki. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some of the treecats are major characters in the series, so I fail to see why the list has been nominated for deletion. The nominator has WP:IDONTKNOWIT. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the important ones are listed at List of Honorverse characters. I know this series fine. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't you redirect it to the character list article? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both articles. The series as a whole is important in the sense that a best seller (or in this case multiple bestsellers) is important. It is also the subject of an active forum discussion (at the publisher's site), and has attracted several other writers who have published stories in the series universe. The treecat article is about an important (and it seems increasingly so) species in this universe. The list of treecats article s split out of the treecat article some time ago. Various proposasl to reinclude it have not gotten very far. The urge to delete can be taken too far as in this case. Merge of the list into Honorverse characters is also proposed (and re proposed) -- see the talk page fo rthe list of treecats article.
We have here an excess of exclusionism, and without a real need to conserve disk storage, the bits saved are not sufficient to justify deletion. And, lack of notablility can't be justified in comparison to the multitude sof articles about records issued by obscure band.s Indeed, of article about obscure bands. Or the vast number of geographical stubs about nations with good geodetic surveys. Personal distaste is insufficient, and deletion for such reasons is a discredit to WP. ww (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not in any way a significant part of the work in the universe that we live in. You don't need to know much more than that they're sapient tree-dwelling cats that rarely develop an empathic bond with humans to understand the Honorverse novels or understand our articles on the Honorverse novels. That other stuff exists doesn't change this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nb: it's never about saving space; the database only grows. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excessive in-universe detail. Far beyond the bounds of an (electronic) encyclopedia. JBsupreme (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons mentioned above. Its perfectly legitimate encyclopedic content, with enough information to fill its own page. I'm against any attempt to merge it, and certainly would object to someone trying to delete it simply because they don't like it, believe they are helping the wikipedia by deleting every fiction article they can get away with, or because of their interpretation of a suggested guideline, which aren't bonding anyway, they guidelines not policy. Dream Focus 11:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for those suggesting keep - Can any of you demonstrate the notability of the topic? --EEMIV (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to, since those are just guidelines/suggestions, not policy, and can be ignored. They are just suggestions on how to determine if something should remain, not binding laws. Does this article hurt wikipedia in any possible way? If someone wasn't interested in the topic, are they likely to ever find it? Is it potentially interesting or useful to some people? Is there enough information here to warrant its own article, and not be merged with other things? Dream Focus 12:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then can you articulate a reason to make an exception to GNG for this content, without resorting to empty assertions like, "it doesn't hurt anything" and "it's useful"? --EEMIV (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell us why we should follow the suggested guidelines, and how they help us in this case? They are just suggestions on how to improve the wikipedia, but you are suppose to use wp:common sense and ignore all rules above all else. Dream Focus 21:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given your apparently tenuous grasp of WP:ENC, WP:NOT and even the WP:IAR you cite, I don't see much use in try to engage with you any more. Happy editing. --EEMIV (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, treecats are major characters in some of the stories. If you need specific stories specified, say so. oooo, alliteration! - Denimadept (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said below: being important within fiction != being important to the real world, which is what Wikipedia calls for. --EEMIV (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Important to the real world? What are you talking about? 99% of the stuff on the wikipedia isn't important, its just interesting entertainment. 99% of the articles on insects are about useless ones you couldn't possibly have any reason to need to know anything about. But some people enjoy learning about bugs, so its there, it entertainment for them. Do you think learning about every Roman Emperor, or ancient civilization, is important to the real world in any possible way? Wikipedia is mostly entertainment, that's it. Dream Focus 21:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
99% of the stuff on the wikipedia isn't important, its just interesting entertainment - It is to your benefit you find much of it interesting entertainment. But if that is the limit of your perspective on the project, I don't see much use for (engaging with) you. Happy editing. --EEMIV (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a fan site (there are many many places on the internet for this kind of stuff) and there are no sources independent of the subject that establish this as a notable subject on its own -- it's a plot element.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - True, it's not a fan site. It's a meta-fansite. Which fiction do you keep, and which do you toss? The Honorverse is popular, not on the level of Harry Potter, but it sells enough for its author to keep getting published. Treecats are, at times, very significant to the plot, hardly a mere "plot element". - Denimadept (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to any third-party that has recognized the importance of tree cats such that they've offered the topic significant coverage? Being important within fiction is not the same as being important to the real world, which is the perspective called for per WP:GNG, WP:WAF. --EEMIV (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a problem, no lie. Finding a significance to fictional characters is tough to show. Does Honor Harrington herself have significance? Does Frankenstein's monster? What sort of significance is needed? Are sales figures important, or just cultural references? How long do you allow for either to develop? - Denimadept (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a fansite. It isn't a meta-fansite. Wikipedia is in all respects a discriminate encyclopedia, we don't let just anything on. We have rigourous guidelines of inclusion which work off of a definition of notability which hasn't been met in this article. Per Wikipedia:DEL#REASON an article may be deleted if it doesn't meet the notability guidelines. All of the points that the nominator brings up are valid and per our deletion policy this article should be deleted because it doesn't meet the relevant notability guideline, and because the content is just not suitable for an encyclopedia as it fails WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. If this would ever be appropriate for an encyclopedia it would have to be covered from an out-of-universe perspective looking in at the topic and analyizing its significance in the real world. If this is impossible, which I highly suspect it is, the article doesn't belong here. Them From Space 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely fails WP:N, and per WP:DEL that IS a valid reason to delete it. It also fails WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. The topic of "treecat" has not received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources and despite what some would like us to believe, Wikipedia IS still an encyclopedia, and NOT a fansite. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking notability through significant coverage from reliable sources. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a plot summary, since fictional topics should have real-world context. There only exists one sentence of that here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete lack of any assertion of notability whatsoever, clear failure of WP:NOT#PLOT. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the other comments above; another heap of edits more appropriate for Wikia. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a small amount of this somewhere in the Honorverse, There is no need for something too have separate notability to be merged as part of an article. None of the delete arguments given here apply as against a merge. The list is not indiscriminate, for it contains only the items in this particular sub-fiction. I notice that Jack has chosen to comment on an article after A nobody placed a rescue tag on it, although he has been asked at AN/I to stay away from situations like this. DGG (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki (if a suitable site exists). No real world context, plot summary style, fails WP:N. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More bad news for WP:PRESERVE die-hards—Honorverse Wiki (logical transwiki target) already have a Treecat article (as of course they would), and they consider this content "terrible work". Perhaps this will only strengthen Keep votes. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting thread; if they don't want this stuff, why would we? We need a new WP:SHORTCUT to the effect that WP:WIKIADOESNTLIKEIT, Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Honorverse concepts and terminology. Much as I'd like to justify this one, I'm not sure I can.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as more excessive in-universe, WP:NOT-busting fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep [1] has a bit of material (other than the story) but I agree, WP:N looks hard to meet. There are many reviews that mention treecats, but none go into great detail that I can find. Hobit (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure fancruft. Stuffies notwithstanding, WP:GNG requires significant coverage in independent third-party sources. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first is a cluttered, in-universe mess of unreferenced plotcrap, excessive detail, and original research. The second is crufty list of non-notable characters and plot details, trivia, and original research. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 06:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two. I voted both keep (above) and merge because both are acceptable to me. Debresser (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge proposed and ready to execute. Debresser (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Be bold. If any of this information is worth keeping, it is worth including in List of Honorverse characters, regardless of the outcome of this AfD. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)~~ [12:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC): Bad advice struck. See below.][reply]

See: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion especially:
You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of GFDL). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy. This is not an issue, however, if the merged content is not merely copied and pasted, but instead completely rewritten so that only uncopyrightable facts are transferred, not copyrightable expression.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. That's a mistake I've made. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd await the outcome of the discussion anyway. Just meant that I'm ready to do the merge as soon as consensus would show merge (as it deserves). Debresser (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changed my vote, because, re-examining, I see they have already been merged as far as useful--except for possibly combining the two articles. No more of the plot is used than needed to give context. The notability of the individual items of merged content does not have to be demonstrated, because thats how we deal with things of borderline or a little less than really adequate notability. If they were notable, we;'d need separate articles, and nobody is saying that (I hope), Nominating combination articles for a deletion will subvert all possible compromise on fiction. I have tried to argue that combining most individual character articles into articles like these preserve the necessary content in compact form. Some people have said this might not be enough, because then the combination articles will be deleted--and then the articles about the characters as a group, and all reduced to bare lists of names. This nomination and the support for it justifies their doubts. To justify the deletion, one would have to say the entire group of them are of no significance to the fiction as a whole, which is a little disproportionate an over-reaction. I cannot tell if this string of nominations against characters and character groups in this fiction is a statement that the fiction as a whole in not important enough for detailed coverage (about which I have no real opinion), or whether no fiction at all should get detailed coverage. If the latter, its the attempt of a small group to wear down the opposition. They may be strong enough to succeed in their ambitious program to destroy popular culture coverage--one of the two great high points of Wikipedia coverage (computer technology is the other). Incidentally, NOT PLOT only applies to the coverage of the fiction as a whole in Wikipedia, not individual articles. That was the basic compromise to save the entire clause from deletion. ~~—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 14:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of treecats is redundant with the main Honor Harrington character list, except that it's also crammed with tons and tons of incidental and sometimes even nameless characters. Posit that this is true, and disposing of it subverts no compromise.

Other than that, you used a lot of words to say "This subject is important to the Honor Harrington universe, and must therefore be kept." Unfortunately, its significance in the universe where I keep my shirts hasn't been shown, and that's the universe that matters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not to an encyclopedia. The world of imagination is an equal part.. BTW, I wonder if anyone has made a T-shirt of any of them? DGG (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To this encyclopedia, we treat it as an artefact of the real world, and in the real world, it's a minor part of a series of novels. So minor nobody has seen fit to comment in reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You must be joking. No real-world notability whatsoever. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. With plenty of references, this article has the potential to be at least a B class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomCat4680 (talk • contribs)
Keep. Describes an important concept and important characters in a particularly notable series of books. It would be impossible to gain an adequate understanding of the series without this content existing, so at most it should be merged somewhere, but I really don't think that's appropriate: here is the best location for it. Here are sources that show it is considered an important aspect of the series by reviewers: [2][3][4]. JulesH (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of those sources discuss treecats in passing reference; there's nothing at any of them that suggests overarching importance within the series, let alone to the real world. The nature of treecats/their role in the series is already covered in sufficient detail at individuals' entries at List of Honorverse characters. Were treecats so important to the series, I suspect both our and the Honorversepedia's entries on the overall franchise would actually make more than passing mention, too. --EEMIV (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question - Another editor beat me to making the same point at another AfD; I'll make it here: despite the ARS tags and several days at AfD, I don't see that anyone has offered up any sort of sourcing to establish notability for this topic. The closest would be the links above -- but, not really, since they just offer blurb summaries of various Honorverse books. Can anyone point toward a source that asserts just that understanding treecats is important to understanding Honorverse? Or a source that might actually meet the threshold of WP:GNG offering third-party critical commentary? --EEMIV (talk) 04:36, 19 April 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.