Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luthic: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
→[[Luthic]]: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#WP:POKEMON_redirect_issue, replaced: WP:POKEMON → WP:Pokémon test |
||
| (29 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''merge to [[List of Dungeons & Dragons deities]]'''. [[User:Mark Arsten|Mark Arsten]] ([[User talk:Mark Arsten|talk]]) 02:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
===[[Luthic]]===
:{{la|Luthic}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luthic|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September
:({{Find sources|Luthic}})
This character does not establish [[WP:N|notability]] independent of [[Dungeons & Dragons]] through the inclusion of [[WP:WAF#Secondary information|real world information]] from [[WP:RS|reliable, third party sources]]. Most of the information is made up of [[WP:NOT#PLOT|plot details]] better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN|talk]]) 16:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Line 8 ⟶ 14:
*'''Keep''' It looks like there are secondary sources. What's more there are no plot details in this one whatsoever. It helps to give policy based reasons, but they need to take account of the actual content of the article. I do not know what "no current assertion for future improvement means". How can there be ''current'' indications of ''future'' improvement? (I assume that's meant by "assertions", or is the meaning "The article does not specifically ''say'' it can be expanded? Unless people stop writing about this game, which seems unlikely, there are certainly possibilities for future improvement. Even stub articles are acceptable, so there is no need for "extended" coverage as a criterion for keeping. '''Every single sentence of the nomination is incorrect.''' It would make as much sense to nominate this as "BLP violation". '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 16:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
:*All of those are primary sources from the main company, and character descriptions are plot details. There is no potential for the improvement of the article shown anywhere, as in references listed and not yet utilized or even the basic presumption that it can be salvaged to conform to current guidelines and policies. [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN|talk]]) 17:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
::* Really? I think you have shown that you don't actually know that much about this subject except for how to copy and paste and AFD tag to them. Maybe if you had done some research or even proposed some changes even mergers we might take your claims more seriously. But as it stands you look like you are trying to push your own POV on Wikipedia. [[User:Webwarlock|Web Warlock]] ([[User talk:Webwarlock|talk]]) 17:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
:::*I don't have to know anything about it (though in the case of this overall topic, I have read some of the Forgotten Realms novel series). I generally plug the name into the searches up above and look at the results. [[WP:BURO]] in regards to strictly following BEFORE by the letter. These articles are not good at all, and deleting them is perfectly fine. If they happened to have to be merged, it doesn't really matter, but deletion would be preferable to keep them from being recreated. The fact that the project let an anon revert dozens of proper merges without even intervening shows that you guys also don't really care anyway. [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN|talk]]) 17:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
::::*DGG, The nominator's rationale ''clearly'' mentions a lack of "independent" and "third party" sourcing. That you consider the sources to be "secondary" (which is itself incorrect), doesn't change the fact they are not "independent" and "third party" ([[Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent]]). Your recommendation is thus fundamentally faulty and ignores the deletion rationale, if you want it to have any weight I advise you to amend it.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] ([[User talk:Folken de Fanel|talk]]) 11:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' or '''Merge''' to [[Orc deities]]. I find the rationale behind this nom to be suspect. For example is not part of the community guideline to first propose a merger BEFORE an AFD. It doesn't matter what the nom ''thinks'' is going to happen. Speculation like that is too much like Original Research to me. [[User:Webwarlock|Web Warlock]] ([[User talk:Webwarlock|talk]]) 17:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements|list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 18:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games|list of Games-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 18:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)</small>
*'''Keep''' per the reasoning of [[User:DGG| DGG]]. --[[User:Mark viking|Mark viking]] ([[User talk:Mark viking|talk]]) 19:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
:*What reasoning? He misidentified the official D&D resources as secondary, and the rest is just nitpicking at the wording of my rational. The article does not satisfy [[WP:N]] at this point. [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN|talk]]) 19:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - as always with these articles, not a single [[WP:RS|independent secondary source]] so we can't [[WP:NRVE|verify notability]]. Not a single argument for keeping the article is policy based. I will change my vote to keep immediately if an editor can find a reliable independent secondary source which discusses the topic of "Luthic" in depth. Fanboys just wanna keep their cruft.--[[User talk:Claritas|Simone]] 09:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to [[List of Dungeons & Dragons deities]] or '''delete'''. Either is acceptable. I agree with Simone. There has been no credible, policy-based argument for keeping this article. It boils down to [[WP:ILIKEIT]] or zealous inclusionism. The article does not satisfy the [[WP:GNG]], and it does not matter whether TTN uses a boilerplate or not. There are no independent, secondary sources, and the article is even helpfully tagged with PRIMARY. I don't see how any any of DGG's arguments are true. Dragon, TSR, and Wizards of the Coast are all trademarks of the publisher. How are there any secondary sources? [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 11:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
*The official D&D resources are secondary; only the game itself is primary. But what would be correct to say is that the official resources are not ''independent''. Given that this is simply a split, the question is one of style--whether it is best presented separately or not. And to discuss that, we need to consider the inability to prevent merged material from disappearing. That's happened many times, and it's why the fiction minimalists accept merges if they must. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 14:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
** No, for a fictional setting across many rulebooks like D&D, secondary would be references that provide transformative information about the diety's role in the broader work than just a being with some number of stats. (Arguably, there could be first-party secondary sources, such as a notable licensed novel that goes into depth on the diety, but that's not what is being offered here, and even in that case, it would still depend what transformation is done. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-size:x-small;">ASEM</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 04:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
***Per [[WP:FICTIONPLOT]], any source that provides original (or supplementary) in-universe development to a character (ie plot) is ''primary'' by definition. For example, the 7 ''Harry Potter'' books are primary sources, not just the first one. If a source provides out of universe commentary from an author, then this is ''secondary'' information, but then when have to take into account the independence or affiliation of the source. To be clear, ''any'' book authored under copyright from WotC or D&D is affiliated (non-independent), and ''any'' book that provides supplementary storyline/gameplay elements is primary.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] ([[User talk:Folken de Fanel|talk]]) 11:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:But Wikipedia is about quality over quantity. Let's say hypothetically that the parent article on Dungeons and Dragons characters is the only one backed up by independent sources which substantiate notability. Would it serve the reader to find all of the material about the characters currently present on the article ? Of course not; the reader is uninterested in knowing the specifics of relatively obscure figures such as Luthic and wants to find a more general article about the sorts of characters which inhabit the Dungeons and Dragons universe. It's not a question of style whether to keep these articles; we are not allowed to have articles on non-notable topics which are subtopics of parent topics as [[WP:INHERITED|notability is not inherited]]. [[WP:IINFO|Wikipedia is not about everything]], there are fanwikis which are much more suited to this endless regurgitation of trivial plot features. [[User talk:Claritas|Simone]] 21:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
:: This reply is off topic for the purposes of this discussion, but...Wikipedia is all about quantity, not quality. Quantity, in the form of comprehensive coverage, is what makes Wikipedia typically so much more useful than traditional encyclopedias. I'd rather have 100 rough articles with some useful information than 10 polished articles and and huge gaps in coverage. That groups interested in specialist topics have had to create wikis separate from Wikipedia, is frankly, a failing of our community. --[[User:Mark viking|Mark viking]] ([[User talk:Mark viking|talk]]) 22:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
:::So where should the line be drawn? Just going from D&D, there are hundreds of character and setting articles, and that probably covers a fraction of a percent of all the possible articles. Just the Forgotten Realms setting has over ten thousand articles on their wiki, let alone all the other versions. If this character is allowed a free pass, why can't the hundreds of thousands of other characters from all other series get articles? You can try to designate major and minor topics and regulate lists, but in the end such a mindset only opens the door for a flood of people arguing that "minor character A" from "Series L" is just as important as "secondary character Q" from "series G." That's the reason for requiring a real world viewpoint so as to cover topics from an objective standpoint. [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN|talk]]) 22:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::if "Wikipedia is all about quantity, not quality." then there would be no policies [[WP:V]] / [[WP:OR]] / [[WP:NPOV]] / [[WP:UNDUE]] as it is far easier to generate quantity if you dont have to actually provide any sources and can spew your personal opinion into every article. [[2009–11 Toyota vehicle recalls|Quality matters if you care about your reputation.]] And Wikipedia is nothing if people dont trust the quality of the content. A large portion of the audience in fact presumes there is an official editing oversight and the assume that what they read here is " true" - we owe it to them to make quality our highest value. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 13:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
::::::"Wikipedia is all about quantity, not quality" outright contradicts [[WP:NOT]]: "The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere on the Internet".[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] ([[User talk:Folken de Fanel|talk]]) 11:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Merge/Redirect''' as a valid search term. No GNG-type sourcing demonstrated. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-size:x-small;">ASEM</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 04:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''transwiki''' to some fansite that would love this cruft. As for Wikipedia, there are no independent sources, only sources by the creator/officially licensed producers, no one else has found the subject worthy of note. Per [[WP:GNG]] the options would be merge, redirect or delete. Since the potential merge target itself is completely bloated with primary sourced cruft with only 1 item sourced to a potentially independent source (and the "independence" of that is arguable as the author has created officially licensed content), merge would essentially be just be shovelling the shit from one corner of the stall to another. The name is a potential search term and so redirect seems the appropriate choice. However, since redirect is where we were before it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luthic&diff=424231957&oldid=249282009 was cruftspanded by an IP,] the redirect should be locked down. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 12:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 04:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
:::the bar is being set no higher than any other project- [[WP:Pokémon test]] - '''all''' articles are expected to have [[WP:GNG|independent reliable sources take note of them in a significant manner]]. There is no exception for D&D products. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 04:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Procedural close as redirect/merge''' to [[Orc deities]]. This article was one of a series of related articles initially merged by [[User:Drilnoth]] November 2008; the merge was reverted by an IP-only editor two and a half years later. This suggests tacit agreement that the redirect and merge was acceptable to the majority of editors associated with the wikiproject. In my opinion, a return to the ''status quo'' would serve the encyclopedia better than a prolonged and potentially heated debate over each individual deity article. (Note: there are other similar article currently nominated for deletion; I will copy this !vote/recommendation to those affected as well.)[[User:Vulcan's Forge|Vulcan's Forge]] ([[User talk:Vulcan's Forge|talk]]) 00:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
<hr style="width:55%;" />
:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''[[WP:RELIST|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.'''</span><br />
:<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Mark Arsten|Mark Arsten]] ([[User talk:Mark Arsten|talk]]) 03:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->
<hr style="width:55%;" />
*'''Merge''' to [[List of Dungeons & Dragons deities]] or '''delete''', per users NinjaRobotPirate and Vulcan's Forge. The ''keep'' comments blatantly ignore the nomination rationale, and fundamentally misunderstand [[WP:GNG]] and the different [[WP:PSTS|levels of sourcing]]. The article is devoid of a single secondary source, let alone independent sources, it thus fails to demonstrate notability of the topic per [[WP:GNG]] and is better merged.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] ([[User talk:Folken de Fanel|talk]]) 11:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Delete/Merge''' – Per NinjaRobotPirate, Vulcan's Forge, Folken de Fanel. No independent coverage has been found yet, and the subject doesn't appear likely to generate future independent coverage. [[User:Egsan Bacon|Egsan Bacon]] ([[User talk:Egsan Bacon|talk]]) 21:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||