Misplaced Pages

:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:42, 11 August 2022 editPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,784 edits Listing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rokugan.Tag: Twinkle← Previous edit Revision as of 14:20, 12 August 2022 edit undoTTN (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users58,138 edits Listing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/L-Ron.Tag: TwinkleNext edit →
Line 15: Line 15:
==Science fiction and fantasy== ==Science fiction and fantasy==
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line --> <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/L-Ron}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rokugan}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rokugan}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Characters of Dragon Prince (2nd nomination)}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Characters of Dragon Prince (2nd nomination)}}

Revision as of 14:20, 12 August 2022

Points of interest related to Science fiction on Misplaced Pages:
Portal – Category – WikiProject – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – To-do
Points of interest related to Star Trek on Misplaced Pages:
Outline – History – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Stubs – Assessment
Points of interest related to Star Wars on Misplaced Pages:
Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Stubs – Assessment – To-do
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Science fiction or fantasy. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Science fiction and fantasy|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science fiction or fantasy. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Misplaced Pages's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Related deletion sorting

Science fiction and fantasy

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 redirect to List of DC Comics characters: L. Looks like a plausible search term so I'm choosing to redirect this page. If you believe it should be redirected to a different target, please discuss this on the article talk page. Liz 22:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

L-Ron

L-Ron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic fails WP:GNG. There don't appear to be any substantial reliable sources talking about the character, only minor mentions and unreliable fluff articles like CBR. TTN (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

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.
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 redirect to Legend of the Five Rings#Setting. Liz 03:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Rokugan

Rokugan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am afraid this fictional entity fails WP:GNG. My BEFORE failed to locate anything that is not a plot summary. Redirect to Lo5R (parent game) is probably best we can do here? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as both Merge and Redirect had advocates and more than one redirect target was favored.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

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.
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 redirect to Dragon Prince and Dragon Star trilogies#Characters. Two editors favored Deletion while one favored a Redirect and one said they wouldn't object to a redirect so as the closer's decision, I went with the redirect option. Liz 22:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Characters of Dragon Prince

AfDs for this article:
Characters of Dragon Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A totally unrefenced plot summary in the form of a character list. Not much we can do with this piece of WP:FANCRUFT, rescue-wise, I am afraid. Unencyclopedic plot summary, failing WP:NLIST, WP:GNG, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

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.
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 delete. ✗plicit 12:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Arcadia in the arts and popular culture

Arcadia in the arts and popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another failure of WP:IPC (also, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:V - mostly unreferenced, and even WP:OR. Unsourced definition of the concept, unclear inclusion criteria, pretty much the usual list of media which use the term Arcadia. It's contains a ton of stuff like "The mythic world that adorns the album covers of the rock band Asia, specifically the albums Alpha (1983) and Astra (1985). The album Astra was tentatively titled Arcadia." or "In Yu-Gi-Oh! 5Ds, there is an organisation called the Arcadia movement." Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

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.
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 redirect to Queen Zixi of Ix. Liz 04:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Ix (Oz)

Ix (Oz) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV to meet Misplaced Pages's WP:NOTABILITY guideline. There are trivial mentions, but nothing to build an article that is WP:NOT just WP:PLOT details. Cannot be improved because there isn't significant enough coverage in reliable independent secondary sources that can provide out-of-universe context. Jontesta (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

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.
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 delete. Consensus is to Delete but a Redirect can be created after deletion. Liz 21:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Henry Fitzroy (character)

Henry Fitzroy (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable character Avilich (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This was prodded by TTN. I deprodded with suggestion to merge or redirect to Blood_Ties_(TV_series)#Characters. Avilich could have just boldly done the merge or redirect. I could have too. ~Kvng (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
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.


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 , and none is likely to form here when the open question is keep or redirect. And if the latter, whereto. Since there is not going to be consensus for deletion of the content or the material under the redirect, this discussion can continue on the Talk page. Star Mississippi 01:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Miraz

AfDs for this article:
Miraz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV to meet Misplaced Pages's WP:NOTABILITY guideline. There are trivial mentions, but nothing to build an article that is WP:NOT just WP:PLOT details. Cannot be improved because there isn't significant enough coverage in reliable independent secondary sources that can provide out-of-universe context. Jontesta (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rorshacma: Did you also check out Milton, Spenser and the Chronicles of Narnia: Literary Sources for the C.S. Lewis Novels, pages 51-54, the comparisons of Miraz with Jadis and established literary characters of Spenser, Milton, and Shakespear? Daranios (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The full preview is not available for those pages, but yes, I did check out what was available in the preview as seen here. And I still hold that it is not significant enough coverage to support an independent article - that single sentence it is being used as a citation for is about the extent of it. It is certainly the best of the sources included in the article by far, as the other three are flat out useless as far as establishing notability for the character, but an article can't be built around a single decentish source, and that single sentence can be easily moved over the character list of the main Prince Caspian article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Rorshacma: "The main elements that make Miraz a villain are his ursurpation and his refusal to accept the spritual, namely Aslan. Such rebellion and apostasy are both evident in Milton's Satan and his followers. ... Miraz certainly commits crimes against humanity and a family member. In a sense, this connects him to the rebellion of Satan..." seems not to be in what we already have. Neither is that the author thinks him an inferior villain character to Queen Jadis despite male gender often being equated with more power. Daranios (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Rorshacma: Did you check out Restoring Beauty: The Good, the True, and the Beautiful in the Writings of C. S. Lewis, especially p. 76? Daranios (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
That source is OK, but honestly still does not have a whole lot of actual analysis on Miraz specifically that goes beyond summarizing his role in the plot. The text on page 75 and the top of 76 regarding Miraz is basically just retelling his role and actions in the book, and the only real piece of analysis on page 76 is the couple of sentences starting with "Miraz is a villain... not because his beliefs differ from those of Caspian, but because he desires to crush all belief to achieve his ends." As I said in my initial comment, there is, of course, discussion of him in overall reviews or analysis of the book and/or movie as a whole. But none of it is really significant coverage of Miraz specifically that demonstrates that he passes the WP:GNG in his own right, separate from the overall notability of Prince Caspian. Prince Caspian is notable and has many sources regarding it, but having some brief discussions of Miraz in those sources in the context of a wider discussion of the book does not automatically equate to Miraz being independently notable, nor requiring a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The question seems to be whether the sources provided by those advocating Keep are enough to establish notability for this fictional character or if the page should be redirected instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 21:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Commment - The sources added to the article are extrodinarily trivial, a casting announcement and two reviews that mention the character in brief passing mention. The sources brought up in the AfD are stronger, but still fall short of meeting GNG. There's really not a lot to add to the article without relying on an abundance of quotebombing, which really doesn't make for good article content for a character. Prince Caspian itself is quite lacking, so it'd make much more sense to use these sources to bolster that article. It's not like it cannot be split out again if it later turns out the character can meet GNG and the weight of the character proves to be too much for the main article. TTN (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Rather, what we have here is a general moving of the goalposts. The original nomination is so ridiculously wrong as to be either a WP:CIR failure or an outright falsehood. The parade of "Oh, but that's not ENOUGH coverage" combined with Piotrus' reneging on his pledge to change his vote if a reception section was added should be plenty sufficient evidence that there's not a single good-faith opposition to this being a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    The article I just looked at still doesn't have a "reception" section. Please get your facts right before accusing others of malpractice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I wasn't aware the section title mattered. I assumed you capable of noting the added content involved critics reacting to the movie portrayal of the character, without needing the section title to be exactly and only titled "reception." Regardless, there's substantially more there now. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Merge per Rorshacma. Agree that the coverage is either off topic or WP:PLOT. What little coverage is more on topic for the parent article about Prince Caspian. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Prince Caspian, the novel, is clearly notable for an article, and sources presented make that clear, if there were any doubt; but the characters are not themselves notable for seperate articles. There is no good evidence that Miraz is a subject beyond being the Prince Caspian novel character. I don't think merge is appropriate as Prince Caspian contains information on the character and the article would not be improved by the other information it does not contain (e.g. casting of the character). I don't object to a redirect to the Prince Caspian article, but it seems unlikely it is actually required. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
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.
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 redirect to Ian Irvine. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The Three Worlds Cycle

The Three Worlds Cycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing a pass of WP:NBOOK; in fact, I couldn't find a single reliable review online (Googling "three worlds cycle" review and "view from the mirror" review). There's some stuff on Goodreads and some blog posts, but not much else. Suggesting redirect to Ian Irvine, the author of the series. Ovinus (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

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.
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 Campaign setting. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Metaplot

Metaplot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced WP:OR. Intrestingly, the definition ended up being cited (and attributed to Misplaced Pages) in a RS (a book published by McFarland, p.118, footnote confirming the source is Misplaced Pages is on p.123]. Without the attribution this definition ("overarching storyline") also appears in this academic paper. The term does appear in few more (academic, reliable) sources but I can't find anything that meets WP:SIGCOV. Aside of the interesting case of almost WP:CITOGENESIS, I wonder if anyone can rescue this, or should be just delete or redirect this? (redirect where? Maybe Setting (narrative) or even better, perhaps, Campaign setting?) The best I have is half a sentence long reworded def in here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Games. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge to Metanarrative, perhaps? I think the article is poorly thought out, the list incomplete, and I'm not sure it's worth saving. It includes Rifts (role-playing game) which seems to me the quintessential "Let's throw all this stuff we wrote together and call it a multiverse" as opposed to previous games from the same developer such as The Mechanoid Invasion. Classic entries like The Morrow Project are missing, and it doesn't at all engage with literature-driven games like Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game). Could it be salvaged? On first read, my inclination that it does such a bad job of what it sets out to do that it shouldn't be. Jclemens (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Jclemens I don't think metanarrative is a similar concept. Or they are just both badly written, perhaps (metanarrative has sources but it is also a postmodernistic mambo jumbo). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this belongs on Misplaced Pages as it is probably a WP:DICDEF but uses the term and formally defines it as does . uses it, and as noted by Piotrus, cites this article. It is also used as "meta-plot" in sources like and which define it in a similar way but for different types of fiction. I'm leaning toward keeping and expanding from a WP:N viewpoint. I'm less sure about the DICDEF issue. I do think the world is probably (very slightly) better off with this article given it has been cited by external sources. But... Hobit (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Hobit ... citogenesis. Although the topic of Misplaced Pages creating knowledge deserves some proper academic attention. Succesfull citogenesis can still create notable entities (ex an OR essay in Misplaced Pages that creates a new, notable concept that becomes notable). The thing is, I an not seeing sufficient sourcing to suggest that the concept of metaplot is notable, with or without considering any citogenesis, hence my recommendation to redirect this for now. In the RPG context, what's the difference between metaplot and campaign setting? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    I'd say a metaplot is likely an aspect of a campaign setting; if anything, that may be a good place to merge or at least redirect. BOZ (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Piotrus: The campaign setting is the geography, characters, etc. Often this is presented as a snapshot at one specific point in setting time. The metaplot is if there is an overarching development in setting time (well, a plot). Some settings have that, some don't. So in my view you can't have a metaplot without a setting, but you can have a setting without a metaplot. Daranios (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    <ec>Quite a bit IMO. A setting is a place. A metaplot is a plot running through multiple stories ("adventures" in this context). I'd argue that many of the pathfinder adventure paths are in a setting and that often each book has a plot, but the whole adventure path has something of a metaplot. And then things, like the conflict between the gods, that sometimes resolve just a bit in different adventure paths are somewhere between campaign setting and metaplot. I'm also seeing that "meta-plot" predates the use of metaplot in RPGs and has a very similar meaning. So it's not just citogenesis (which is a cool word btw). Hobit (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Hobit @Daranios I am still having trouble grasphing this concept; isn't it simply an "idea that connects multiple books"? As such, it likely was invented as soon as some presumbly ancient artist decided to make a sequel, prequel, or simply split his work into two parts due to size... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    It could be. But some books, like Lord of the Rings, really is one story in multiple books. Other things, like say the Sherlock Homes stories have what I'd say is metaplot--Watson getting married and how that all worked out for example. Those examples are most certainly OR, but I think we have enough sources to at least describe the idea. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    I was actually thinking of Lord of the Rings myself, but that would only be a good example if the stories in each book were more disconnected from each other rather than just being pieces of one huge story. Many book series that feature a single protagonist or group of characters could be seen as having something like a metaplot, if plot elements from previous books continue to be relevant in later books. BOZ (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    Taking Silmarilion into account, I think Middle-Earth is extremly metapolotish. This is really ORish, but hmmm, take Bank's The Culture (or Pratchett's Discworld). Each book is independet but set in the same universe. Some characters occasionally overlap. There is connecting narrative. What about metaplot? It's all subjective... point is, there is something here, but it doesn't appear sufficiently research to make a good Misplaced Pages article at the moment (certainly not an RPG-focused one, since we are already discussing non-RPG works). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge or keep. Most of what is in the article now can be referenced to secondary sources. Contrary to the nomination, this source does not only have half a sentence of definition (p. 12), but also a bit of commentary with the example of Shadowrun on p. 43. Taking together the sources, this article could be extended just beyond a stub, beyond the size suggested for merge reason "Short text", and beyond a dictionary definition. If no more sources are presented, it would remain short, so I have no objections against a merge to Campaign setting, which in my view is by far the best target. As for WP:CITOGENESIS, well, we don't know if the definition appeared before Misplaced Pages somewhere, but the term is used now by secondary source both with and without reference to Misplaced Pages, so it should appear in some form in our encyclopedia. For what it's worth, the primary source Exalted Storyteller's Companion, p. 6, has used the term in 2001, before the existence of our article, in our sense here. (And other sources have used it in a different sense...). Daranios (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    Hah, Shadowrun. Now that's metaplot galore... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. I haven't been able to find any significant coverage beyond what's already been raised in the above discussion. The sources that have been raised aren't cumulatively sufficient to indicate notability, and don't provide a basis to write an article that goes beyond a dictionary definition. McAbee 2014 has to be set aside due to the citogenesis issue. Carraro 2022 and Bowman 2010 are passing mentions. Faricelli 2015 is self-published (Lulu.com). Byrnes 2008 uses the same word to refer to an entirely different concept. Daranios is right that White et al. 2018 comes the closest to constituting the sort of significant coverage we require, but we'd need at least one other source dicussing the subject in at least that level of depth for WP:GNG to be met. A merge or redirect could be viable, but I'm not sure merging to campaign setting is a good idea given the very poor state that article's in, and metanarrative is definitely a non-starter (I'm mildly surprised we don't have some sort of glossary of role-playing games where this could go). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Citogenesis, as far as I know, isn't a good reason to not use a source here IMO. Even if the original source was Misplaced Pages for the word (which it is not), that doesn't invalidate the source. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
      • There are lots of good reasons to avoid citing sources that cite Misplaced Pages. Aside from the significant risk of questionable material (unsourced facts at best, made-up nonsense at worst) being reproduced, the fact the author and editor thought it wise to cite Misplaced Pages in published work should put the rigour of that author's work in question. These problems exist in relation to any source that cites Misplaced Pages; they're significantly exacerbated when the source cites the Misplaced Pages article it's then being cited in, and are exacerbated further stll when the article they're citing (as in this case, which cites this version) is or was itself entirely unsourced. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 18:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

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.
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 redirect to List of Hellblazer characters#Francis William "Chas" Chandler. Liz 18:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Chas Chandler (character)

AfDs for this article:
Chas Chandler (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfD last year ended in no consensus, and the article hasn't improved since. Last time the keep votes consisted of one editor asserting that "television and movie appearances suggest notability", and another (topic banned since then from participation on deletion discussions) presented two sources, one of which seems to be just a passing mention in a sentence (), the other one is more in-depth but still limited to the plot summary and of dubious reliability (bamsmackpow). (WP:RSN discussion about it did not attract any comments sadly). Sources present in the article don't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV or are outright PRIMARY (comic books themselves). I recommend redirecting this to List of Hellblazer characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

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.
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 keep. After article improvements, character deemed significant enough for standalone article. (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador 19:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Aaron (The Walking Dead)

Aaron (The Walking Dead) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've prodded it a while ago with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Misplaced Pages:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". PROD was removed without any rationale offered by a user since topic banned from deprodding. We then held a merge discussion that ended with no consensus (Talk:List_of_The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)_characters#Merge_secondary_chacters_with_little_reception_here). Given the reception here is still a single sentence, I think it's time for an AfD, with my recommendation being a redirect to the List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

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.
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 redirect to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters#Alexandria Safe-Zone. Sandstein 09:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Olivia (The Walking Dead)

Olivia (The Walking Dead) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've prodded it a while ago with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Misplaced Pages:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". PROD was removed without any rationale offered by a user since topic banned from deprodding. We then held a merge discussion that ended with no consensus (Talk:List_of_The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)_characters#Merge_secondary_chacters_with_little_reception_here). Given the reception here is still a single sentence, I think it's time for an AfD, with my recommendation being a redirect to the List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

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.
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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hall of Justice (comics)

Hall of Justice (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've prodded this 2 years ago with "How is this comic book location notable? Sources are the usual PRMARY for PLOT, plus list of appearances in media. It was also made into two or three toy sets. Nothing here seems sufficient to warrant a stand-alone article?". The PROD was removed without any comment, and the article is still a combo of plot summary and list of comics and related media this appears in (which is pretty much a bulleted point version of plot summary). Can this be saved? My BEFORE suggest this is unlikely... (all I see are some minor plot summaries). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge or redirect? Or merge-redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  02:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Sources in the article (including a reference that I just added to Robert Greenberger, Justice League: 100 Greatest Moments (2018)) suffice to provide WP:SIGCOV. It has appeared in various iterations of fictional media, and in the real world as a toy set. At least one real-world building has been modeled after the fictional one (I have also added reference to this), which also indicates architectural significance. BD2412 T 03:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • What substantial information is to be found in the 100 Greatest Moments? Looking at the Google Books search, I see plot-only trivial mention after trivial mention, so I don't see how it can be said to provide significant coverage. There appears to be no significant commentary on the structure at all in that source. There doesn't appear to be anything currently in the article that necessitates the current level of depth. Justice League#Headquarters can easily be expanded to two or three paragraphs to include the minor development info and sufficiently describe it in expansive enough detail relative to its weight. TTN (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • For substantial coverage, I would first point to the CBR article, "Meanwhile... A History of the Justice League's Hall of Justice". That certainly goes beyond being "plot-only". In any case, we would need to keep the current title as a redirect to maintain the edit history of content copied over per the GFDL, but I see nothing on the page that should immediately be deleted, so we would end up copying over the entire thing into an article-length section inside another article. BD2412 T 16:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • What in particular does an article that simply regurgitates info found elsewhere bring to the table? The only real world information in the article currently attributed to it is a quote that seems to originate from the older of the Cincinnati Enquirer articles. It appears that source could be completely removed without any lost context. My opinions on listicle-farming trash like CBR not counting as a reliable source aside, I don't see how an article created simply to capitalize on search results is in any way significant coverage if it provides no real original commentary on the topic.
  • This does not reflect the reality of what the sources say. The assertion that The 100 Greatest Moments provides "plot-only" trivial mention is incorrect. That source also states that the building was "based on Cincinnati's Union Terminal", which is obviously not a "plot-only" detail (unless an in-universe discussion of this design element can be provided), identifies Al Gmuer as the designer of the building for the comics (also not a "plot-only" detail), and characterizes the reaction of fans to the structure (also not a "plot-only" and obviously significant to notability). The CBR article by a well-known writer in the field is not a "listicle" and is a reliable secondary source. Of course it contains information that can be found elsewhere, that's why we use secondary sources. However, the article also describes—not found in any other source that I have seen—the artist's eventual displeasure with having to draw the building due to its complexity, which is also obviously not a "plot-only" element. There has not been a good-faith examination of the sources. !Votes premised on rejecting permissible sources because some editors wish they were impermissible should be discounted. BD2412 T 18:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what good is supposed to come from pointing out that the referenced content amounts to minor production details. That's textbook trivial coverage. The quote, "In the long run, I hated that building...The way it's designed, it was not easy to draw. I had nightmares about that damn building" comes from this 2009 article (or was at least was the first to use the quote if it originates elsewhere) that is already cited, so that means there is no benefit whatsoever to the CBR article. Though again, that is a minor production detail doesn't help the topic meet GNG or necessitate a full article on the topic. Even without this back and forth on what consitutes reliable and signficant, the amount of real world information cited in the article is extrodinarily trivial. It can all fit within the parent article in a small single paragraph. TTN (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Nevertheless, the CBR source is an originally arranged piece by an expert in the field. It is a reliable source, and it does provide in-depth coverage of the subject. Of course, the details are about a fictional structure, which is no different from having an article on the Death Star or The Simpsons house or Hogwarts. If such details were automatically trivial, we wouldn't have any of these. BD2412 T 18:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • But if it provides nothing new, then what good is the article in fulfilling the requirement of significant coverage? If you can remove it from this article and lose no context, what purpose does it have? In having nothing new to bring to the table, that solidifies its place as a pop culture fluff piece that exists solely to drive clicks. Primary production details are fine article content, but they are not GNG-fulfilling content. They can be placed in the most relevant space, which would be the main article's section on the topic. To sustain an article, we need a good deal more in terms of commentary and cultural impact. TTN (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • We seem to be arguing "notability" vs WP:Notability. The building is undeniably something culturally recognizable, but that does not currently extend to meeting GNG through reliable sources. As of this time, everything in the article amounts to a few minor sentences that together fail to meet the SIGCOV threshold. Articles don't need to have 15 paragraphs of cultural analysis to meet GNG, but this still isn't cracking more than a paragraph of mostly minor production details. TTN (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • In order to reach that position, you would have to imagine that CBR and the Cincinatti Enquirer are not reliable sources. There is no such determination at WP:RSP. With the right attitude, one could dismiss every piece of information in Misplaced Pages as "trivia" and delete the whole thing. BD2412 T 20:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
    The main issue I am seeing is that few sentences are not really WP:SIGCOV. Still, there may be something to MERGE to Cincinnati_Union_Terminal#In_popular_culture, which, strangely, doesn't even seem to link back to this article (although it does mention the connection). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
    There are now 22 23 sources in the article, including five six that I have added within about the past 48 hours. There are, obviously, many more sources in the world that discuss the Hall of Justice to some degree, but suppose we do a source analysis of the 22 23 that are currently in use. BD2412 T 04:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
    By all means, please tell us which of these meet SIGCOV. To avoid miscommunication, for each source you think meets SIGCOV, you provide a link and a number of sentences and paragraphs about this source, plus a quotation of your choice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
    The status quo is that an article is kept unless there is a consensus for deletion, and this consensus must be supported by policy. The burden is yours to make the case for deletion. Why don't you tell us which of these sources does not meet SIGCOV, with a number of sentences and paragraphs. I have actually just added a 24th source, which spends three pages, a total of fifteen paragraphs, describing just the Kenner/DC Hall of Justice playset. BD2412 T 05:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
    WP:BURDEN. The ball is in your court. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
    WP:BURDEN states: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". The substantial claims of the article are supported by inline citations to reliable sources, several of which contain multiple paragraphs on the subject of the article. That burden is clearly satisfied. BD2412 T 19:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
    The burden of verification, yes. The burden of notability, not as much. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    You cited WP:BURDEN. I merely quoted what it says. BD2412 T 04:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    The 2009 Cincinnati Enquirer piece reposted here is typeset at about 40 paragraphs, but since almost every sentence is its own paragraph, it amounts to about 50 sentences. It might be quibbled that the article strays from the comic book topic, but the title is literally "Meanwhile, at the Hall of Justice…". BD2412 T 05:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
    The source is arguably about the Cincinnati Union Terminal as much as it is about Hall of Justice. The section "Union Terminal in peril", for example, is all about the real, not comic building. I still see no reason to split the 'Union Terminal in popular culture' section into a dedicated article. Other than a short paragraph about how the Hall was inspired by the real building, all there is is fancruft (plot summary and media appearances). A redirect will suffice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
    "Arguably" cuts both ways. That section is 1/5 of the entire article. BD2412 T 19:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
    And the rest is mostly about CUT, with only some mentions of HoJ. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    The entire thrust of the article is about how the Cincinnati Union Terminal, despite being an unquestionably notable building in itself, is far less notable than the quasi-fictional building (quasi because versions of it have now actually been built) from the comics and TV series. The first nine paragraphs of the article are about the Hall of Justice (a paragraph noting similarities between the buildings is by definition about both); the last six paragraphs of the second section are about the Hall of Justice; several additional paragraphs of the article are as well. If you knew nothing about the Hall of Justice before reading this article, you would come away from this article knowing why it was designed, when it was designed, who designed it, how it was designed, what the editorial process was, what it looks like, how the designer felt about it, how an important segment of the audience felt about it, and some details of repeat appearances after its debut. BD2412 T 04:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    For the sake of the argument (and yours is not terrible), let's agree this source is ok. GNG does, however, require two good sources. Can you show me your second one for this? Again, one that meets SIGCOV and goes beyond a plot summary? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
    Before getting into that I am going to point out that in the past few days, I have completely turned this article around in terms of eliminated unsourced cruft, and providing a not-in-universe section about the origin and design elements. Compare the current article to the version at the time of nomination, and it's night and day. As for sources, there is no policy excluding the above-discussed Anthony Couto CBR article, "Meanwhile... A History of the Justice League's Hall of Justice", for this purpose. That is seventeen solid paragraphs on this subject. CBR is a permissible source and the author of the piece has been cited in published works in the field. The complaint that the article is derivative of content published elsewhere would knock out every biography of John Adams or history of the American Civil War that relied on recounting events previously recounted by others. It has no basis in policy, nor could it. I would also point to Greenberg's Guide to Super Hero Toys, which spends three pages and a dozen full paragraphs discussing a playset of Hall of Justice (which has various features of the building as depicted in other media). We could practically have an article on the playset alone, but I think it's best to keep the content together with other information on one of the most recognizable fictional buildings in the U.S., if not the world. BD2412 T 06:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
    While I am not fully convinced, looking at the current distribution of votes it is likely this will be kept. Thanks for rescuing this (even if I'd like to see at least one more good ref, as I am not convinced Greenberg's is a RS). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please re-review the article as it has basically been rewritten.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

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.
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 keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Adamantium

AfDs for this article:
Adamantium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

12 years since last AfD, our standards have risen, but this article remains, well, a fan-written plot summary, and rather short at that. Outside of said plot summary, we have an 100% WP:ORish section on etymology, and that's it. WP:BEFORE found a tongue-in-cheek paragraph in this academic source, and a bunch of short plot summaries and mentions in passing. This should certainly redirect somewhere but my BEFORE does not suggest that the topic of super strong materials in fiction is obviously notable. As such, Unobtainium#Similar_terms or Wolverine (character) is probably best. PS. Suprisngly enough (at least for me), vibranium is very much notable (see Vibranium#Scholarly_analysis, which I just added). I'd be very happy if we could save the adamantium article in a similar fashion, as I already noted, my BEFORE didn't help here (unlike for vibranium). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

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.
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 redirect to The Incal. Liz 23:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The Metabarons Roleplaying Game

The Metabarons Roleplaying Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A pnp RPG based on a French comic book series. I've added the sole ref it has now, but (the ref) reads like a press release, and I couldn't locate anything better. No fr interwiki. Unless someone can dig better sources, a ~1 sentence merge with the ref I found and redirect to The Incal might be best? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

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.
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 redirect to Vampire Academy#Main characters. Liz 03:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

List of Vampire Academy characters

List of Vampire Academy characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another long list of in-universe, unsourced cruft. Either delete it or cut it down and merge. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

If an edit you make is reverted (and this includes you making a redirect or requesting a speedy deletion or prod), you may find it better to go to the talk page and start a discussion to try to get consensus for what you are doing. See WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Or, of course, you could raise the matter in advance on the talk page if you anticipate opposition. Thincat (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see consensus here but the Keep votes aren't grounded in policy-based reasons and seem like a reaction to the suggestion of deletion. Any more support for redirecting this article to Vampire Academy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Redirect, since there is an obvious appropriate place to redirect to. De Guerre (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Vampire Academy#Main characters - While character lists can be valid spinout articles on a piece of fiction, that is not an automatic guarantee that there should be one. In this case, a completely unsourced list of overly detailed plot information is not an appropriate spinout, and should be Redirected back to the main article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect as this is not a valid spinout, as it is missing WP:NOTABILITY in the form of WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. Jontesta (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment List of X characters derive notability from the fictional franchise; Rorscacma is correct. However, the second part of the argument presumes that there are no sources for any of the characters and that no clean-up could fix it. In fact, there is simply no evidence either has been attempted. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
    There's more to it than just notability. Per WP:WAF, fictional subjects should be covered in terms of their real-world cultural impact and RS must be found w/ an eye towards showcasing same. This is what separates WP from the countless fan wikis which proliferate online.
    Along that same line, why is everyone is so quick to point out all the ways they think an article could be improved, but no one actually does it? I swear, AfD causes WP:BEBOLD to go right out the window. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect As per Piotr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
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.
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 keep. Squeaks by with Weak Keep. Liz 23:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The Dark Eye: Skilltree Saga

The Dark Eye: Skilltree Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources don't come close to passing WP:PRODUCT. ––FormalDude talk 11:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, and Germany. ––FormalDude talk 11:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Dark Eye#Video games as a WP:ATD. Does not seem to be standalone notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep or Merge per WP:ATD to The Dark Eye. Eurogamer is an RS and meets SIGCOV. the other two are routine, non-significant descriptions, so doesn't count towards GNG. Otherwise, searching on Metacritic, Google, News, Books... doesn't find much RS. Still, ref 1 and 2 are RS (despite the latter being a very brief press announcement), so maybe preserving some of the content from the refs through merging would be helpful? I think redirecting is also okay, but would oppose deletion.... After further evaluation, the third ref is debatable. It's mostly just a game description, but with some evaluations (The work of Silent Dreams studio is a low-budget product, so there is nothing to expect from it graphic fireworks. The storyline and exploration of the world are presented here on boards with static, two-dimensional graphics and but it is intended for a younger, casual audience). However, its description is also long enough to be considered significant probably. I don't think it's an RS, but it's listed as so in WP:VGRS, so it's hence a likely RS that is probably SIGCOV. In this case, we have 2 refs counting to GNG, so it's very borderline, but I'm open to either merging or keeping. IMHO, after a couple of days this could be closed as keep. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. According to WP:VGRS Eurogamer is RS, and the coverage seems to meet WP:SIGCOV. Same for gamepressure (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#www.gry-online.pl). IGN is reliable but the review is video or too short too meet SIGCOV. The article is a substub that needs expansion but I see no compelling reason to redirect this right now. Expansion seems warranted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Dark Eye#Video games. While the Eurogamer Germany review exists and on the first glance it looks decent in coverage, after reading it in detail, I've realized it offers very little information about the game at all. The whole thing is more of the reviewer's rant about his bad experience, with the only features being mentioned: automatic battle, the boss appearing every ten levels and two pay to win currencies (and of course, none of these were discussed beyond pure mentions). Fails WP:GNG but should be preserved per WP:ATD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I disagree, as there is all right content from an RS, probably selecively merging the content from the refs would be better. I've read it, and it is quite negative without too much info, but still okay for merging. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get firmer consensus to redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle 19:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like a stronger move now to Keep, rather than redirect or merge this article. Let's give it a little more time to solidify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

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.
Categories: