Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streaker (David Brin)

:{{la|Streaker (David Brin)}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streaker (David Brin)}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Streaker (David Brin)}})

Plot-only description of a non-notable starship. There are no secondary sources which analyze the topic. Material receives more than sufficient coverage in other articles. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The Streaker appears in most of Brin's novels set in the Uplift Universe. Both David Brin and these novels are definitely notable. Why shouldn't the connecting thread, the Streaker, be notable? I fail to see Abductive's insistence on secondary citations as the sole measure of notability, since whether or not some academic has gotten around to writing about "the Streaker as a symbol of whatever" is essentially a random event. DavidHobby (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

:*Or a sign of total lack of academic interest. By the way, it is not my insistence on secondary sources; this is from WP:PSTS, a Wikipedia policy developed by years of consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 06:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

:**WP:BEFORE would seem to expect a higher level of value than that put forth to date by the nominator. You asserted that no secondary sources exist; a simple Google Books search has demonstrated that to be false. Jclemens (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

:***As can well be imagined, the "sources" you point to are either the Brin books themselves, or passing mentions of the ship. Nothing there to hang an encyclopedia article on; no analysis of the ship. Abductive (reasoning) 16:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

:****The problem isn't with the sourcing, it's in your absolutist and incorrect statement. Because your nomination is fundamentally false, and further that you've chosen to try and define what "is" is rather than amend your nom, you lose credibility and respect from other editors, like me. By all means, say that the sources are inadequate, that's a great conversation starter, but don't falsely claim that none exist. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

:*****It isn't fundamentally false; that is an unfair characterization of my methods. For example, I just removed the notability tag I put on Gubru, a fictional race from Brin's series, because it has appropriate sourcing. In any case, much worse flaws in an AfD nomination, such as a WP:POINTY nom, do not derail the nomination. This topic is not notable, and nothing can change that. Abductive (reasoning) 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

:******You said "Article has no secondary sources, as none exist." and cited WP:PSTS above. Are you asserting that none of the sources I found are, in fact, a secondary source? Again, saying that they are inadequate, insufficient, or not primarily focused on the topic would be fine. You continue to maintain that no secondary sources, whatsoever, mention this particular fictional element. That, on the other hand, isn't fine. Good faith does not demand that we treat intentional falsehoods left unretracted by an editor who's been show their error as anything more than bad faith. Again, I implore you: admit your error, amend your statement, and participate in the discussion on the basis of fact, rather than transparent and ineffective self-justification. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

:*******So amended. I did not use the word "mention"; my definition of secondary sources is the same as in the Wikipedia article: "In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed. Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." Abductive (reasoning) 18:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. I've read a fair number of the early novels. There's nothing special about the ship; it's just your usual necessary SF plot device to get from one place to another. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to Uplift Universe. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. [http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&q=Streaker+%22David+Brin%22+-inpublisher%3Aicon&btnG=Search+Books this] Google books search shows the ship covered in multiple independent RS--books on sci fi that cover Brin's works. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• ...and [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Streaker+-streak+%22David+Brin%22+source%3A%22-newswire%22+source%3A%22-wire%22+source%3A%22-presswire%22+source%3A%22-PR%22+source%3A%22-press%22+source%3A%22-release%22+source%3A%22-wikipedia%22&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a this] Google NEWS(!) search shows three RS, although two are in French. There are unquestionably enough RS with which to write a sufficient article on this fictional element, so I'm tagging for rescue. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Those are "trivial mentions". Those are about the book(s). Wikipedia already has articles on the books. Abductive (reasoning) 16:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Notable ship which appears in several notable works and numerous secondary critical sources. Deletion is clearly not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. This discussion is textbook case of why "non-notable" is subjective and needs to be avoided at all costs. This ship gets literally [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=Streaker+%22David+Brin%22 dozens of hits in published books], not just reviews, but published books. The first page of results verifies for us that it is a central element of a multi-volume series. Now, some might claim that these books are primary, sources, and yet, after the first page of results we find that the subject is verified in everything from [http://books.google.com/books?id=M_3kNDKhxIcC&pg=PA1276&dq=Streaker+%22David+Brin%22&lr=&cd=18#v=onepage&q=Streaker%20%22David%20Brin%22&f=false published encyclopedias] to other [http://books.google.com/books?id=6_Fuwfs29wIC&pg=PA124&dq=Streaker+%22David+Brin%22&lr=&cd=21#v=onepage&q=Streaker%20%22David%20Brin%22&f=false analytical texts] (in this example, we have out of universe discussion of the model of the ship). Anything covered at all in so many different published books meets the common sense standard of notability in addition to the subjectively interpreted wikipedic notion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Startide Rising Five pages of Google book hits isn't anything to crow about, especially most of the hits are for editions of the works in which the spaceship appears. The others, it appears, are discussions of SR in which the name of the ship is going to inevitably appear. I see little to no evidence that the ship is discussed independently of the books; indeed, its design plays no real role in SR for example (as opposed to the central point that the Sundiver ship plays in its book). Mangoe (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep or at the very least, ,merge to either the article on the first nobel or the world. This article has considerable more detail than most of the articles on the series, so a merge rather than a redirect would be appropriate > In any case, there is no argument for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Me again, still arguing for Keep. I took a stab at adding the best of the references from the above searches to the article. Excluding references from the main books themselves, there are (probably short) references from various books of reviews, from short stories and essays by David Brin, a picture of Streaker published elsewhere, and so on. DavidHobby (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

:*Striking second keep notvote. There are no valid secondary sources that analyze this subject. None. Zero. Zilch. Abductive (reasoning) 17:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

:*Sorry, I figured it was clear that I wasn't voting twice. The picture and discussion of the Streaker in _Fantasy art masters: the best in fantasy and SF art worldwide‎_ would be a "valid secondary source analyzing the subject" wouldn't it? As others have noted, you seem to be consistently over-stating your case for deletion. I also argue that Brin's book of essays counts as a secondary source. Though he is the author, it is additional discussion of the Streaker in a separate source than the books the ship is featured in. (I agree that additional publications by the same author may not add to the notability of the author's books, but that's not what we're arguing about. The case for the notability of the novels themselves is very strong, and (presumably) not being questioned.) DavidHobby (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

::*Brin himself cannot count as an independent source. Yes, it is secondary.

::*The mention of Streaker in the art book doesn't analyze the topic at all.

::*In [http://books.google.com/books?id=k4qgRSodu80C&pg=PA216&dq=Streaker+%22David+Brin%22&lr=&cd=14#v=onepage&q=Streaker%20%22David%20Brin%22&f=false this] Google Books return you linked to, the author calls Streaker "a coveted McGuffin". This is evidence that Streaker is a mere plot device, and not worthy of an encylopedia article. See WP:PLOT. Abductive (reasoning) 19:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge to Startide Rising - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2010 (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.