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 keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ix (Dune) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable fictional location. The only references are to the works of fiction: it seems that the article is unlikely ever to go beyond WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. List of Dune planets already exists. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Dune planets. It's one of the 4-5 most important planets in a large fictional franchise that has spanned over a dozen books and two film adaptations. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of Colonel Warden's findings. I confess, I gave up before finding that; shame on me! Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is proportionate to comparable articles in other fictional universes, and is core to understanding that universe. I would expect there to be such an article, so this informs my sense that there should be such an article, and so it is well that there is such an article. I happened upon this deletion notice, as I consulted (fully expecting that it would exist as well) Bene Gesserit. I do not understand the deletionist impulse in this case. When Sergeant Cribb says, "...it seems that the article is unlikely ever to go beyond WP:OR and WP:SYNTH", I trust he was conceding that, "this article [does not now and] is unlikely [going forward] to violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH", which I believe to be the case. -SM 14:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I mean that in my view it is currently WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and is unlikely ever to be anything else. Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? For "comparable articles" see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I was keen to avoid speaking against a point you might not have in fact made. OK, it is not WP:OR (it stays within the referenced text, and has ample footnotes), it is not WP:SYNTH (it does not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources [emphasis mine]").

As for WP:GNG, the topic of Ix is notable simply because Dune is notable and Ix is notable within Dune. This is consistent with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. So, for me, the question is solely one of due weight, which would drive the decision whether to contain the topic (at its due weight) entirely within List of Dune planets, or to break it out into it's own article. I beleive the topic is of sufficient weight to have its own article, and at a minimum due weight would be too large for the list.

-SM 00:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. It comes from significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Can you suggest any coverage outside the fictional works themselves? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not solely come from significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It is not a sine qua non criterion for notability, but only a criterion by which notability may be presumed. Arguably, in the case of documenting a fictional universe it is not even apropriate, as the notability may be found in the topic's evolving recurrence in the set of novels, films, games, etc, that progressively define the Dune universe- inter-textually, if you like. Having said that, the treatment of the topic of Ix in various fanzines, guides, etc would be my suggestion, if I thought it was necessary to provide examples of such coverage to quash deletion.

The more relevent principle here is, "[from WP:NOTINHERITED] Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right". Again, Dune is notable, and Ix is notable within Dune. This is not the sort of empty inherited notability which WP:NOTINHERITED rightly proscribes.

I've reread the Ix article several times now. Given that the topic evolves over the course of a set of works, I cannot see how it would be cut to a size suitable for a list entry without taking it below its minimum due weight, even if I thought it should be significantly shorter, which I actually don't. Perhaps somewhat shorter, but not so much as to merit the merge. Again, in this case, I don't understand the deletionist impulse. How many articles in the universes of Star Trek, Star Wars, The West Wing (to choose three dense topic spaces at random) would survive the criteria as you would apply them?

-SM 10:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The status of other articles is not argument for deletion or retention of this one: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what you are citing? Wikipedia:Other stuff exists states, clearly, that sometimes it is an argument for retention, in fact in cases very much like this. You have miscited, by turns WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:OSE, WP:NOTINHERITED,WP:GNG. Please read them, rather that just choosing the most deletionist construction as absolute license. -SM 21:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then please cite the relevant parts and explain why you believe they apply in this case. Comments on the perceived inadequacies of other editors are certainly not arguments for retention (or deletion, come to that). Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and trim. It is notable in the series, but I'm not crazy about the reliance on primary sources on this page. A quick search shows secondary sources do exist, but all for $$. Prob best to merge. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable being covered in detail here, for example. Warden (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! =D -SM 10:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you mention this. I found it doing my WP:BEFORE due diligence. You will notice that it is about half a page on the subject of Mu Boötis, which mentions that Ix is stated to be the ninth planet, that we don't know which of the three stars in the system it is supposed to orbit but might be Alkalurops A. That's it. Ix might be Alkalurops A 9. This is significant coverage? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it satisfies WP:SIGCOV. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, proof by assertion. No doubt the person closing the discussion will accord due weight to a passing mention in a book that uses the Dune series as a peg to hang nuggets of scientific information on, as in this case a little chat about the trinary system Alkalurops. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Dune planets. No significant coverage in reliable sources - however, content in the article is well cited, and a good summary would be appropriate in the list. Anthem 08:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking !vote by banned sockpuppet. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to List of Dune planets: With a lack significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, I do not think that the fictional planet as an individual subject meets the general notability guideline. As single third-party source that talks about the real Mu Boötis star system and incidentally mentions the fictional planet is not significant coverage for the fictional planet. There is no reception or significance for the fictional planet as an individual subject in reliable secondary sources, so there is no presumption that it is an appropriate topic for a stand-alone article. Since the article is referenced mostly with primary sources and using original research by synthesis, I do not believe that the content justifies being kept, but, in order to generate consensus, a merge is an acceptable alternative to deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per detailed independent coverage cited above. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2011 (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.