Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystra (goddess)
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 No-consensus --JForget 00:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mystra (goddess)
- )
Non-notable fictional character. This article is written in-universe. The character is not covered by substantial primary sources, so creating a sustainable wikipedia article will be impossible. Mikeblas 16:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup Lots of good information here, it just needs to be dramatically cleaned up to be presented from an out-of-universe pov Maelwys 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Yet another nomination of a quite notable (though fictional) character. A Google search for the specific search object "Mystra D&D" returns 19,000 hits. While this is not a sure-fire test of notability, there's a lower-bound there somewhere, and I'm pretty sure it's below 19K on a very limiting text string. These are becoming quite routine, and nom. might do well to try to dialogue with members of this project before sending the next bale to AfD. ◄Zahakiel► 20:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Google hits mean absolutely nothing because there is no guarantee that anything list is reliable or provides significant coverage. Significant coverage is a part of being notable and Google hits can't demonstrate that because it doesn't matter how much of the text is actually devoted to the topic if it's mentioned at least once. Jay32183 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Google hits do not mean "absolutely nothing;" they are simply not a guaranteed measure, which is what I said in my previous statement. No doubt, a lot (maybe even the majority) of those hits are fansites and forums, but it strains credibility to imagine for a moment that the many thousands of pages mentioning this character (remember, the 19,000 was only from one specific search term) do so only once or in passing. As I pointed out, there's a lower bound somewhere. ◄Zahakiel► 22:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ]
- So... your statement "Google hits are completely meaningless!!!" links to a page that says, and I quote, "using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is." That is, admittedly, used in a cautionary statement about their usefulness, (i.e., "no guarantee," which I've been saying all along anyway) but your choice of wiki-link was, well, disingenuous. I don't have any particular interest in this topic, so someone else will have to take up your challenge to WP:PROVEIT, but to say (however loudly) that this character has no notability is just silly. ◄Zahakiel► 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To demonstrate notability you need the guarantee. A subject is presumed notable when it has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. That has not been demonstrated in this case, therefore, the article should be deleted. Jay32183 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no; to carefully read the WP:PROVEIT button, but if your argument is about the "notability" of Mystra, there's some flexibility allowed, supported by strong precedent, that relegates your "the article should be deleted" position to a matter of opinion rather than policy. For the record, I think your opinion has merit as a general rule. I just happen to disagree with it in this particular case. ◄Zahakiel► 05:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My issue isn't the "multiple" part, it's the "significant coverage" part. There is no significant coverage beyond plot summary, ]
- Actually, no; to carefully read the
- To demonstrate notability you need the guarantee. A subject is presumed notable when it has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. That has not been demonstrated in this case, therefore, the article should be deleted. Jay32183 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So... your statement "Google hits are completely meaningless!!!" links to a page that says, and I quote, "using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is." That is, admittedly, used in a cautionary statement about their usefulness, (i.e., "no guarantee," which I've been saying all along anyway) but your choice of wiki-link was, well, disingenuous. I don't have any particular interest in this topic, so someone else will have to take up your challenge to
- ]
- No, no... "plot summary" has nothing to do with character descriptions, and if you think I'm "wrong," then of course we disagree. ◄Zahakiel► 15:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Character descriptions are plot summaries if they can be sourced to just the story. It's a plot summary with a character specific slant. There needs to be real world information, and there needs to be sources for that information. No evidence for such sources existing has been provided. Disagreements are about opinions. I am not disagreeing with an opinion you have, I'm telling you that you are factually incorrect. Jay32183 23:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'm disagreeing with you about that :) A plot summary is (...wait for it now...) a summary of a plot in a work of fiction. A character description, particularly when featured in more than one plot, is not a "plot summary." I'm just giving you definitions, and of course you're quite free to disagree with these particular facts. You can take it, you can leave it; it's not going to change the consensus that is being quite reasonably sustained against a small group of 3 or 4 editors who robotically seek out and vote "delete" regarding works like this. Since we're hardly talking about the subject of this article anymore, I'm just going to leave it here... but I wonder if you're going to learn anything from the continuing keep results or if you're just going to keep on plowing ahead. Time will tell. ◄Zahakiel► 00:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if you call it a plot summary or not. There is no real world context in the article, and there never will be because there aren't any sources. The reason all of the pages get deleted is that they are violation of every one of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Try reading ]
- As I said before, this is not something I'm going to argue with you about, because you're ripe for a soapbox at this point... but I am curious about something you just said. What are "all these pages" that you think are being deleted? As far as I can see, the fantasy articles routinely nominated by this particular nominator are almost as routinely kept, not deleted (I mean, seriously, the guy couldn't even see the problem with nominating ]
- It doesn't matter if you call it a plot summary or not. There is no real world context in the article, and there never will be because there aren't any sources. The reason all of the pages get deleted is that they are violation of every one of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Try reading ]
- And I'm disagreeing with you about that :) A plot summary is (...wait for it now...) a summary of a plot in a work of fiction. A character description, particularly when featured in more than one plot, is not a "plot summary." I'm just giving you definitions, and of course you're quite free to disagree with these particular facts. You can take it, you can leave it; it's not going to change the consensus that is being quite reasonably sustained against a small group of 3 or 4 editors who robotically seek out and vote "delete" regarding works like this. Since we're hardly talking about the subject of this article anymore, I'm just going to leave it here... but I wonder if you're going to learn anything from the continuing keep results or if you're just going to keep on plowing ahead. Time will tell. ◄Zahakiel► 00:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Character descriptions are plot summaries if they can be sourced to just the story. It's a plot summary with a character specific slant. There needs to be real world information, and there needs to be sources for that information. No evidence for such sources existing has been provided. Disagreements are about opinions. I am not disagreeing with an opinion you have, I'm telling you that you are factually incorrect. Jay32183 23:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Listen, friend, it's okay to disagree about content in AfDs. It happens every day, but you're inching closer and closer to the rudeness example) by your statements that I am "hurting" Wikipedia by opposing your view, (the sky is not going to fall if you don't get your way) and more obviously that I "should not be contributing to Wikipedia" in another AfD in which we're both involved. Let's keep this about content, and if we have nothing further to say about that, let's keep it to ourselves, shall we? ◄Zahakiel► 14:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no secondary sources to establish notability, that means the subject does not get an article. There is no opinion there. There is a fact and a logical conclusion. There is absolutely no reason to keep the article, unless you start talking about things other than the content, which don't matter. It doesn't matter that people put in effort, it doesn't matter how important the character is to the plot, and it doesn't matter how many people find the information interesting. Take advantage of Wikia rather than trying to make Wikipedia a fan site. -- Jay32183 (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - as angrily written directly above. Find reliable secondary sources independent of the subject (and, also, not just some website) if you wish to demonstrate notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - plenty of references, more will be found, character spans multiple books. The article needs clean up, not deletion. Or is Wikipedia running out of space that the handfull of K this article is using up? Web Warlock 13:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Unfortunately, all the references in the article are primary sources --they're from TSR and WoTC. It's substantial, verifiable secondary sources which make a subject notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. -- Mikeblas 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one that I didn't even use a search engine for: [1].--134.139.11.192 (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another from Stanford University: [2].--134.139.11.192 (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither appears to be a reliable source. The first doesn't seem to exhibit much editorial control from its submitters, although it does have more control than a wiki. Although the second one is hosted on the Stanford University servers, it is a person website of either a student or faculty memeber. It is self published, not actually controlled by the university. They don't comply with ]
- Comment. Unfortunately, all the references in the article are primary sources --they're from TSR and WoTC. It's substantial, verifiable secondary sources which make a subject notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. -- Mikeblas 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Zahakiel and WebWarlock. BOZ (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the well-organized article does contain references and concerns a character from a notable and influential game. Best, --Tally-ho! 02:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there are no WP:NOT#PLOT; this suggests to me that this article would be better off being fanwikied to fancruft.net.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a place where this article could be transwikied to? While I agree that she is a non-notable fictional character without many (if any) secondary sources, it seems like List of Forgotten Realms deities links to dozens of similar articles. I'm not comfortable with setting a precedent here that allows the nuking of all other character pages without giving interested fans a chance to sort this out and consider saving them somewhere else. – sgeureka t•c 17:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A transwiki still results in the page being deleted from Wikipedia. We aren't going to tell a compatible wiki that they can't have the content unless the reason for deletion is a legal one. Jay32183 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not against deletion at all if it wasn't that for when articles are deleted, normally no-one can easily access the information any longer to save it to his own fan wiki / wikia, and most people unaware of the AfD don't even know that the information even existed once. It is good that WP cleans out all the nn fiction articles, but I really struggle to recommend straight-out deletion for legacy articles that were created when the notability guidelines were not as strict. As I am (irrationally) hopeful that this article and its siblings should be allowed a reasonable chance to find a new home somewhere, I would at best recommend a redirect or better just let the AfD run its course. (Seems like it's heading towards no consensus). – sgeureka t•c 01:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A transwiki still results in the page being deleted from Wikipedia. We aren't going to tell a compatible wiki that they can't have the content unless the reason for deletion is a legal one. Jay32183 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable fictional character.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2007 (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.