Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterdeep and the North (2nd 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.

Waterdeep and the North

Waterdeep and the North (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 article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Daranios (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sorry, what kind of rationale is it "the article has no meaning"? It has a big reception section and cites two books and Dragon (magazine) which I think is reliable, and should not be dismissed as a "fan source". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Piotr. This seems basically fine. Haukur (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or at worst Merge to
  WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KEEP Reliable sources cover it. Also copy and paste deletion rational done across a large number of articles at once, by this relatively new editor, is ridiculous. Dream Focus 15:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Dragon is published by TSR and cannot be used for notability. It appears that the only independent sources are listings which fail
  WP:GAMEGUIDE. It is not enough to presume sources exist, they need actually exist, and to be properly cited. Grayfell (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

One of the two (minimum requirement to fulfill

WP:NBOOK) independent sources is quoted, the other one gives a paragraph worth of info about the book and its content, so they cannot be mere "listings". The content section is about as long as the reception section, that does not seem excessive to me. Daranios (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

A paragraph in a niche book which doesn't, itself, meet

WP:NBOOK is trivial coverage. It is not enough to document bare-bones factual information about a topic, we need to be able to explain to readers why this is encyclopedically significant. The article does a poor job of this, because sources do a poor job of this. Grayfell (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think that a source meets

WP:NBOOK is a requirement (otherwise many academic publications would be excluded no matter their reliability). I think if it's trivial or not is based on the content. What I see in the article is not trivial. Or, to place the general question: There's a lot of information beyond plot summary in the article which is interesting to some users of Wikipedia. What would be the benefit of deletion that would be bigger than loosing that content? Daranios (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, agreeing with the reasons given by Piotrus and Dream Focus. Daranios (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It is absolutely not required that a source needs to be notable in order to be a reliable source. A "niche" book is appropriate for a specialized field of study. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2020 (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.