Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luthic

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luthic

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

This character does not establish

plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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". DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. TTN (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Web Warlock (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. TTN (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 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. Web Warlock (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. TTN (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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
Wikipedia is not about everything, there are fanwikis which are much more suited to this endless regurgitation of trivial plot features. Simone 21:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
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. --Mark viking (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. TTN (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if "Wikipedia is all about quantity, not quality." then there would be no policies
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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
"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".Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
the bar is being set no higher than any other project-
independent reliable sources take note of them in a significant manner. There is no exception for D&D products. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Procedural close as redirect/merge to
    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.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2013 (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/Luthic&oldid=1077428397"