Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedontakal Vrop

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 no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vedontakal Vrop

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

Non-notable fictional opera. No independent reliable sources attest to the notability of this construct outside of the fiction from which it's drawn. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FICT. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Many fictional concepts have wikipedia articles. Created by a respected member of WikiProject Opera, edited by other respected editors. Seems adequate. Worst-case scenario, merge material into Malcolm Bradbury. Montanabw^(talk) 18:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't alleviate the need for there to be reliable sources that discuss this fictional opera in real-world terms. Neither does the status of the article's creator or anyone who edited it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in WP:FICT that supports that something has to be discussed as you describe. GNG can be interpreted in either direction. I see this as an IAR situation, but at the very least, the extensive material should be incorporated into appropriate articles (appears to appear in two novels...hence why I suspect a stand-alone article was created. Montanabw^(talk)

Seriously? It's a bedrock principle of the project that for a subject to be considered notable that there be reliable sources that discuss the subject. GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please offer reliable sources that are independent of the subject that support that this fictional opera is independently notable. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bradbury is a notable novelist, whose work I have never read. If we were dealing with something that featured in one novel, I would suggest merging back to that novel. We cannot easily do that with two novels, unless one is a sequel to the other and we con merge the article on them. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good article, nice idea. Unfortunately the notability criteria for a standalone article is that sources discuss that topic. The sources would be third party (secondary). See WP:GNG. I checked a bit and couldn't find much. ~~Sort of a cart before the horse situation would be better in an article on the book series, which would pass WP:NBOOK #1 if there are multiple book reviews, and add the opera into a section there.~~ Update: I can't support keeping this content anywhere on Wikipedia due to a total lack of sourcing for notability and verification purposes. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see some advantage to doing that, and then redirecting the article. That said, I think GNG has wiggle room. Montanabw^(talk) 05:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason to redirect, there are no independent sources. The article fails WP:GNG it has 0 independent sources. Per WP:GNG an article requires multiple independent sources. This article has no independent sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry to come a bit late to this. The normal courtesy is for those proposing deletion to notify the article author(s), but for some reason User:Jerry Pepsi, who seems from his post to be a stickler for the rigid rules, has dispensed with this. Thanks to User:Green Cardamom for letting me know. There are of course plenty of sources for Bradbury's novels and he is without doubt a notable writer by WP standards. Neither I nor anyone else (yet) has written the articles relating to the two works of fiction featuring this opera, and when (and if) they do, it makes more sense for them to refer to this article rather than merge it with either or both. I beleive the article is reasonably well-written and covers its topic adequately. The topic of a fictional work of art is a legitimate one for WP. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post links to sources that offer "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" of this fictional opera, as mandated by the project's general notability guidelines? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pp. 96-98.--Smerus (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So that would be an apparently non-published student thesis. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A thesis can be used per WP:RS. This isn't MEDRS. Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Published theses may be used as reliable sources. There is no indication that Shodhganga, which is self-described as "a platform for research students to deposit their Ph.D. theses and make it [sic] available to the entire scholarly community in open access", is a publisher or that material deposited there can be considered reliable, since there is no evidence that Shodhganga vets, reviews or otherwise exercises any editorial control over the information housed there. Even if we accept this as unquestionably reliable, which it is not, WP:GNG requires multiple independent reliable sources. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would say merge if it was part of one novel, but now it's in two, and it would be undue detail in the author's article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, difficult to merge. A merge would only preserve content as opposed to just dumping it all. I only offer it as a last-ditch alternative. Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer reliable sources that significantly cover this fictional opera? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not familiar with this writer, but it's telling that his article doesn't discuss either of the two works in which this opera appears. If they're not particularly significant, why would a plot element be? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. As the article is about the opera, it is of course not about the novels. It is an absolute non sequituur to assume that Bradbury's novels are 'not particularly significant' just because there are no WP articles on them (yet). On this basis, a large proportion of the world's knowledge would be 'not particularly significant'. (See e.g. here for something on Bradbury and 'Rates of Exchange'.)--Smerus (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's a false equlvalency, Clarityfiend, Wp can't be a source for wiki, and this would be far from the first time that a main article totally sucks while a spinoff is quite well done. Apples and oranges. Totally WP:LAME argument. Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It's "about the opera", "not about the novels"? So an opera that only exists in the novels can somehow demonstrate notability by its own ineffably manifest magnificence? Look, ma! No hands (sources)! Clarityfiend (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I query why this has been relisted? It's been up 10 days, with the last comment a week ago, and there is no consensus to delete. WP:RELIST makes it clear that relisting is not justified simply because there is no consensus. Why prolong the agony? There is no consensus to delete - therefore close the discussion and let the article remain.--Smerus (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 0 sources. This relist was a gift, extra time to find sources, you should be thankful the article wasn't deleted today. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither thankful nor unthankful, and I see no cause to shout. There are three editors in favour of deletion and three in favour of keeping. No consensus. That's it. And by the way the article is indeed sourced, by undisputed primary references to published works. Moreover no opposing editor has offered any source disputing any of the article; i.e. noone is claiming that the article is inaccurate. The issue is whether or not the existing references are sufficient - and there is no consensus on this. It doesn't seem as if any of those contributing to this discussion are likely to change their minds. Thus, as above; there is no consensus to delete - therefore close the discussion and let the article remain.--Smerus (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Keep !votes all ignore WP:GNG's requirement for multiple independent sources. Those !votes will likely be discarded leaving only a plurality of Delete !votes and thus clear consensus. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's your (wishful, maybe) interpretation, as a would-be deleter.--Smerus (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's your (rhetoric, maybe) response to a lack of multiple reliable independent sources as required by WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a vote and the closing administrator is tasked with weighing the quality of the arguments on both sides as they relate to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The article is nominated for deletion for failing to meet to meet the general notability guideline. To counter that argument, there must be independent secondary reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this subject. You appear to concede that there are no such sources and that the article is reliant on primary material. That is not sufficient to pass GNG. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So says another person who voted for deletion. The person who reopened this has made no comment, perhaps because there is no clear consensus. Montanabw^(talk) 02:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article lacks multiple independent reliable sources per the core notability rule located at WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You already said that. We hear that you said that, we just don't agree that a rigid application of GNG is appropriate here per WP:IAR. There are relatively few sources, but it does not follow that a fairly extensive article should be deleted without any good place to merge the material. Montanabw^(talk) 18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are not "relatively few" independent reliable sources. There are no independent reliable sources. IAR (which you're misinterpreting, by the way) is not an excuse for keeping anything and everything and Wikipedia is not anarchy. Nor is WP:ILIKEIT a rationale for keeping an article on a minor fictional subject that has attracted no attention from the outside world. And at its core that is all this whole discussion has been. Those in favor of deleting point out that there are no reliable sources and those who want it kept admit that there are indeed no reliable sources but they like the article anyway. "The person who reopened this", otherwise known as the re-listing administrator, made no comment because that is not what the re-listing admin does. There is crystal clear consensus that this article does not pass GNG; you say so yourself. The "rigidity" of the interpretation of GNG is irrelevant because even under the loosest possible interpretation of it the article still fails. No matter how loose your interpretation of it GNG still requires reliable sources and no reliable sources exist. This article would be an amazing piece of work for a wiki devoted to the works of this author but it is not and cannot be appropriate for Wikipedia. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is equally invalid, Jerry, and IAR is perfectly applicable; there is no BLP violation, no copyvio, no grounds for policy-based deletion, there is only the question of notability, and here, where should the material go? This is a fairly extensive article and doesn't fit cleanly into any other existing article. I suppose we could create a new one on the whole series and then merge this into that -- would that work for you? Montanabw^(talk) 20:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would work for me is editors not creating articles without checking on whether there are independent reliable sources for them. But since that hasn't happened here, what would work for me is for the article be handled per the general notability guideline. I have no idea why you would bring up IDONTLIKEIT since no one has advanced an argument that can reasonably be characterized as such. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Primary sources can confirm facts, but not notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise: I just created Slaka (fiction). We could merge this into that new article. No sense pitching and all-but-salting someone's perfectly valid hard work if it can be salvaged somewhere. FWIW, I still oppose deletion, though. Montanabw^(talk) 20:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slaka (fiction) has a single independent source with a passing mention about Slaka. WP:GNG requires multiple sources of significance, not just trivial passing mentions (summarized at WP:42). There's no sense merging to another article with notability problems that was seemingly created just for the purpose to hang this content in (see WP:COATRACK). But the bigger problem is no matter where you merge the content it will be vulnerable to deletion since it still lacks sourcing. Anything unsourced can be deleted from Wikipedia at any time. As previously mentioned, Wikipedia is probably not the best place for this content because it's apparently so difficult to source, other than a sentence or short section in the book article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there don't appear to be independent reliable sources that support the existence of an article on the fictional country either. And WP:EFFORT isn't a valid reason for keeping. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you clearly are insisting that "teh rulz" are "teh rulz." Which is petty, small-minded and really quite silly. For all the bandwidth we are wasting here, you folks who did the nom could have also improved the writer biography, done more independent research, or generally have been part of the solution. So merge it all into the author's article then? Seriously, this appears to have been a very interesting political commentary in its time (maybe you two are too young to remember the Cold War era, but it was a big deal at the time) No solution here and no hope of compromise, then. And frankly, if you really want to take "anything unsourced can be deleted from wikipedia at any time" literally, we would remove half the encyclopedia and certainly almost all the articles on, say, Cricket players from Sri Lanka... sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 17:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As "it was a big deal at the time", I'm happy to change my mind towards keeping this article. Please provide the coverage in reliable sources that attest to this being such a big deal. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Slaka itself is mentioned more often than the opera: Korte 2010, Hammond 2013, Starck 2009 and more about Bradbury's works. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 19:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the soruces you just provided, there's not a single mention of "Vedontakal Vrop". I fail to see how those sources establish your case. -- Whpq (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are sufficient to establish notability for Slaka (fiction). I don't know what Smerus thinks, as I think he's the person who most wants to preserve the opera article, but if a merge saves the opera material, I'm for it. And these sources do well enough.Montanabw^(talk) 02:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is on the notability of Vedontakal Vrop (not Slaka), so providing sources that don't even mention Vedontakal Vrop is not particularly useful. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and abuse of other editors is against "teh rulz". Don't do it again. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a personal attack, it was a statement of opinion. So drop that stick and do not attempt to threaten, bully, or intimidate me again. Now, back to the topic. Montanabw^(talk) 02:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other editors "petty, small-minded and really quite silly" is a personal attack, no matter how hard you're now trying to play the victim card. Any perception of bullying or intimidation is entirely in your own mind, but you are expected to remain WP:CIVIL. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Smerus has supplied an independent reliable source (a published PhD thesis); There is no requirement under notability guidelines that such sources be secondary, contrary to the assertion made by Jerry Pepsi. This demonstrates that the imaginary opera has attracted outside notice in itself. It also appears in two of a notable author's notable novels and is significant within its own fictional universe. That is sufficient to allow accurate sourcing of both the content of the opera and commentary about its display of "decadence and excess" as well as a comparison with Russian Ballet - see The Aesthetic of Pluralism (26 June 2010) pp.97-98. When this is kept, that source can be used to extend the article. --RexxS (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, have you actually read the general notability guideline? Notability is established through "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Two pages in a single thesis is not significant, there is no evidence that the document depository in which it is located qualifies as reliable, no evidence that the depository exercises any editorial integrity or that being deposited there even constitutes being "published". The importance of the construct within the author's fiction is irrelevant since by definition they are not independent and the notability of the source material cannot impart notability to its own contents. And even if the single source were unquestionable, which it absolutely is not, GNG calls for multiple sources. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With equal respect, have you understood the point of guidelines? They are not a one-size-fits-all recipe for cooking an article, they are are guidelines to help us improve the encyclopedia. Two pages in a thesis is significant, and you're confusing the requirements for reliable sourcing of references with the requirements of coverage for notability; the importance of a construct within a fictional universe is a concern for the viability of the article, rather than just its notability; and "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." I'll leave it you to work out how notability actually is inherited in such cases. I ought to add that your barracking every single person whose opinion differs from yours does nothing to help your argument, so give it a rest. --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to whom I choose as often as I see fit. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says that sources must be reliable, and self published sources are never reliable for determining notability. WP:GNG also requires multiple sources, so it fails on that count as well (and "multiple" doesn't mean two, it means enough to show notability). As for WP:inheritance, there are times when certain historically significant authors get automatic inheritance, they are basically exempt from the notability guidelines, but it's very rare. Some examples include topics on Shakespeare, Dickens. But even there, we have to get consensus for each article should it come up at AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2013 (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.