Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spacing Guild (3rd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 14:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing Guild

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Spacing Guild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks any reliable sourcing, and is almost entirely a plot summary. With the exception of this article (https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/dune-foundation-spacers-guild-navigators-spice), all sources I found were low-quality Valnet sources. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Insect Comment Some sources were brought up in the last AfD just three months ago that resulted in a Keep consensus. I haven't reviewed them myself, but just making you aware in case you haven't seen them. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see that AfD until after I had opened this one, but even with the sources brought up I still believe the article isn't notable. 2 of them are Valnet churnalism, and the geopolitical article barely mentions the guild. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Looks like there is discussion of it in academia. I agree with Industrial Insect that the article as it stands now is mostly a plot summary in the context of the Dune universe (and therefore the content is more suitable for a fandom wiki). TurboSuperA+(connect) 15:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Industrial Insect:
    • a)Lacks any reliable sourcing: What about the 16-page-chapter in The Science of Dune listed in the article's references?
    • b) What about WP:6MONTHS?
    • c) Did you check out the sources already listed at the top of the Talk page? If you've overlooked both them and the old AfDs, that seems a lot like step B.4 of WP:BEFORE has been skipped. All those steps are there for a reason, to avoid wasting editors' time. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    a) I haven't read it. Seems fine, but one source isn't enough to carry an entire article
    b) I accept full responsibility for that. I was completely unaware of the previous AfD, and I failed to check the edit history.
    c) Duneinfo is a fansite and as such is not appropriate for establishing notability. I can't comment on "Paul's Empire: Imperialism and Assemblage Theory in Frank Herbert's Dune" yet because the link gives me a 404, but based on the previous AfD it looks like a plot summary. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here or here would be alternative links. Daranios (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I skimmed through the article, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but it seems like the article doesn't provide much analysis on the Guild itself. It's only really mentioned during the plot summarization. It's definitely a good article, but it's not particularly useful as a source here. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we are getting into details here, but my 2 cents here: Not sure if the importance of the Spacing Guild and its bureaucratic structure as the real power in the empire is still plot summary or already analysis. But like below, brief but non-trivial analysis of the Spacing Guild being an expression for capitalism: "Moreover, the capitalistic nature of the spice trade and the Spacing Guild are ripe for an analysis based upon the issues of capitalism and globalization discussed in Empire." Would be interesting if someone followed up on Rudd's suggestion of analysis. Google Scholar shows two hits among the six citations of Rudd's paper, both paywalled. There's some preview here, e.g. p 57 (more on pages 20, 72, 94, but no preview). Daranios (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I've meant, too, and how that image feeds back into the atmosphere/perception of the Dune universe. Daranios (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another very relevant web article, not Valnet this time: Denis Villeneuve's Dune Movies Never Got These Big Villains From the Books Right. Daranios (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Collider is actually owned by Valnet. They acquired it in 2020. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drat, I did not know that. In fact, I though I remembered it being list among reliable sources, but can't find that now. At least it was considered rather reliable in one discussion in 2021. In case you happen to have something more tangible policywise, please let me know, but it's only a sidenote here anyway. Daranios (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios A recent consensus at Wikipedia:FILM determined a new Valnet consensus which deprecated the usability of opinion pieces, which states that they should be avoided. Granted the Wikipedia:VG consensus still says they can be used so long as they don't get counted toward notability, but I do hope it clarifies things a bit Valnet-wise, especially in Collider's case, as WP:FILM specifies Collider outright among the listed sources. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books search is pretty fruitful. Early hits are A Dune Companion, which has an entry dedicated to the Spacing Guild; with plot summary but still relevant with regard to notability. The Worlds of Dune has a long chapter titled "The Spacing Guild"; while the limited parts I can see mostly talk about other topics, p. 169 makes the point that the Spacing Guild is the most science-fiction-y element in Herbert's Dune. And especially relevant non-plot analysis in Sun Tzu in Space, p. 40-41, of the Spacing Guild's role as a non-governmental institution of power with comparison to the British East India Company, and a bit more on p. 158. Daranios (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Dune Companion is basically just a Dune encyclopedia. The Worlds of Dune seems good though. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sigh. This topic is clearly notable, and it's somewhat irksome that this article has been AfDed again after three months. But yes, we've been lazy about making improvements. Let me see what I can do ASAP.— TAnthonyTalk 04:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No adequate BEFORE conducted, was found notable in clear consensus 3m ago, and WP:NOTCLEANUP unquestionably applies. Furthermore, an all-plot summary in an independent RS is a transformative secondary source and useful for establishing notability even if our final article shouldn't be all plot. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • From a WP:WHYN perspective it is to some extent a moot point whether sources that solely summarize in-universe information (whether that's a plot summary, character biography, or something different) count towards notability. Articles must not consist solely of in-universe information (WP:NOTPLOT, WP:WAF), so we need sources that cover real-world information regardless. The essay WP:ALLPLOT makes both the point thatPlot summaries necessarily involve selecting which elements of a fictional work are important enough to include in the summary and are thus secondary, rather than primary, sources. anda Wikipedia article based on such sources would need to incorporate other elements to be an optimal encyclopedia article (though the latter statement is too weak—an article that relies entirely on such sources is not just not "optimal", it is a WP:NOT violation and thus not even acceptable). TompaDompa (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even when discounting Valnet sources there is easily enough coverage by secondary sources for a full article with referenced plot summary and analysis. The fact that this is not yet in place is no grounds for deletion in accordance with WP:ARTN and WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Rather, solving these problems, possibly including some trimming of the current plot summary, can be done by normal editing. Our time would be better spent on that rather than discussing deletion. Daranios (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per others, there is significant and valid discussion of the Spacing Guild as a major plot element. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article currently has too much plot summary and not enough analysis, but sources to improve it do exist, and are cited in the article. Needs editing, not deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spacing_Guild_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1286871245"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spacing Guild (3rd nomination), released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.