Shaper/Mechanist universe: Little coverage of locations are found, therefore failing WP:GNG .  Jontesta ( talk ) 23:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's sourced.   The content is all from Schismatrix Plus .   Notability may still be an issue.  Dan Bloch ( talk ) 01:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep first and third entries in a default Google Scholar search are non-trivial academic works covering the fictional universe: a regrettable BEFORE failure.  Jclemens ( talk ) 03:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jclemens Uh-huh.  And how is this not a fork of the notable novel Schismatrix ?  The sources you good are very good - for discussing the novel.  No need to fork the plot into a subarticle.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Jclemens' sources.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 04:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Retract my vote -- Convinced by others (esp Hydronium, who merged material).  Toughpigs ( talk ) 01:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Bruce Sterling per WP:ATD .  While potentially notable, it requires a full rewrite and is not salvageable as-is.  It appears to be entirely plot .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm Better redirect target is Schismatrix ...  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Schismatrix - It seems like most of the content of the article in regards to the fictional elements is already covered on the main book's article.   Additionally, it looks like the the book's article already also covers the "Schismatrix Plus" reprint, which collected the entirety of the series, including the five short stories that led up to it.  It looks like the only thing really missing at that article is the names of those five short stories, so a light Merge to add that information is probably needed.  But, as it stands, this article is kind of duplicative to the information found at the book's title, and its very likely that someone searching for information on the series would be searching using the book's name, not "Shaper/Mechanist Universe".  Rorshacma ( talk ) 19:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep: I've been tossing up between keep and redirect, and I've decided on keep, if more secondary sources, such as reviews, can be added to make the article less WP:OR .  This article, and all articles in general, should be written up as information sourced from many citations, not just from the book itself.  If said new secondary sources can't or haven't been added, then I will argue for redirect, or delete.  — Mjks28 ( talk ) 08:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mjks28 Just wanted to ping you regarding what I myself missed when I commented here the first time - that we already have an article on Schismatrix .  The novel is notable, but its universe?  Doubtful.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that the universe's notability is questionable, but as I do not know anything about Bruce Sterling , or his works, I cannot say whether or not it is influential to many people.  Because of this, I just look at the attributes of the article, such as the lack of sources and overall feeling of plot summary.  I am leaning more towards redirect for this article, as the universe seems to only exist in one novel and five short stories, and could easily just be a section in the Schismatrix article.  That being said, if this universe is considered notable, and more secondary citations are added, then I think the article should be kept.  Mjks28 ( talk ) 13:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect for now, since the article is a pure plot summary, but I'd be happy to revise my vote to keep IF anyone actually improves the article during this AfD (feel free to ping me).  And of course no prejudice to this being restored from redirect into an article if such an improvement is done at a later date.  That said, per my comment above, I don't see how the sources found justify the existence of this article separately from Schismatrix .   -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per nomination.  Not only is this WP:JUSTAVOTE , it also makes no sense considering the nomination is to delete this.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 01:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Mjks28.  This doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV even with some of the suggested sources.  As an WP:ATD , this can be a section in the Schismatrix article.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 11:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per above / WP:NOPAGE : I have merged the short story / Schismatrix Plus content to Schismatrix#Schismatrix_Plus , where it reasonably belongs regardless of the outcome of this AFD.  Schismatrix (which could definitely some qualitative independent referencing) now more than covers all content of this article.  ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 01:29, 3 July 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect