Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1632 writers

: {{la|1632 writers}} ([{{fullurl:1632 writers|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1632 writers}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

No real-world notability. Most of these authors are notable largely because of their assistance in this fan fiction. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to 1632 Editorial Board or a related page; nn, breakout not needed. JJL (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• (EC)Comment The 1632 series of novels, historical and technical articles and story collections appears to be notable. In the encyclopedic coverage of a large body of fiction and fact writings, the authors are deserving of coverage when there is verifiable information. They could be covered in the article about the fiction, unless the coverage would make that article too long, as appears to be the case here. In that case, a stand-alone listing of authors like this may be appropriate. I look for discussion of whether merging the info into some article or various articles about the series is more appropriate than a standalone listing. Edison (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-of-people-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• delete enwiki has been spammed by a commercial franchise. This is entirely non-notable and is full of fake refs back to the primary sources. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I also checked out the main article on the 1632 thing, which I have never heard of before. It looks like a great project but what WP really should have is one, much shorter, article giving the basic info so that people who don't know about it can find out what it is, and then links to fan sites where all of the interesting details can be found by those whose interest is excited. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:N. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Categorize. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• : Comment: I like that idea. Several of the authors are notable by themselves (Flint, Weber, etc.) and since the entire series is an open universe a category would work well. Scratch the category idea. I believe it violates WP:OC#PERF. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• :: I like the transwikification idea a lot better. Wikis like Wikia are *for* fancruft. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge whatever is verifiable and within WP:BLP into the main article. Per Jack's concern I'm slightly suspicious as well when I look at how the article is constructed, but I'm going to AGF for now. MuZemike 21:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• : The methods used to construct this cloud of articles is entirely focused on obfuscation. It's a twisty maze of templates that are all anti-wiki. This serves to deter any editing along the lines of clean-up or merging as it's not realty implemented as wiki-text. This is about cementing promotion of a commercial franchise into a major website. Us. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge, but with what? Several of us listed already have Wikipedia pages. Whoever set up this page did so using a boilerplate approach that unnecessarily fenced off the 1632 material from the rest of the Wikipedia world. I suggest that the first priority be to merge, for example, Douglas W. Jones with 1632 writers#Jones, Douglas W.. I assure you that both pages describe me, and by using this example, I acknowledge a degree of self interest. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• : That whoever also did it to a bunch of pages related to Charmed. This stuff belongs at [http://ericflint.wikia.com/wiki/Eric_Flint_Wiki Eric Flint Wiki] and/or [http://www.klaus-leiss.de/1632Tech/index.php/Main_Page 1632 wiki]. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom, not a notable cross section of fiction writers. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, with modifications. All of the 1632/Grantville articles are currently a clusterf- lacking cohesive structure. I assume in good faith that the templates and other mess are due to multiple fans earnestly working at cross-purposes to improve things. I actually like the author cross-reference list, because it's hard to keep track of one author across 20+ volumes. However, the current format is inconsistent, making it difficult to edit. Just getting tables going, and getting someone sane to explain or rip out templates right and left, would help a lot. Tkech (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

: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.