Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements

< Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TTN (talk | contribs) at 13:58, 3 August 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:58, 3 August 2022 by TTN (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Points of interest related to Fiction on Misplaced Pages:
Category – Deletions

Shortcuts


Deletion Sorting Project
(talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

Deletion Sorting
Project

AfD: Today, Yesterday

Delsort scripts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Fictional elements. 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:

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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Fictional elements|~~~~}} 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 Fictional elements. 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

The guideline Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and essay Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) may be relevant here.

Related deletion sorting

Fictional elements

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

(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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Lists. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment I don't see that the nominator has tried to trim, merge, or redirect, all of which are ATDs. As such, there's really nothing to do here that has proven to be un-fixable by regular editing. It's arguable that this should be closed per SK#1, since "List of X characters" where X is a clearly notable fictional franchise obviously has a redirect target. Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The reason is simple: I've been down this road before. I've tried to do the ATD's for other franchises with character listicles, only to have my efforts reverted by overzealous inclusionists who can't bear to see a single word of their lovingly detailed summaries altered. AfD has proven to be the only way to get this work done w/ proper community involvement. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Speedy Keep on the basis of nominator admitting zero effort to resolve perceived difficulties without resorting to deletion. Jclemens (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
And when I do make the effort, people scream at me for "acting unilaterally" and "not seeking consensus," so what am I supposed to do exactly? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:17, 31 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)

Keep per Jclemens. Don't see a reason for deletion. Agletarang (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jclemens also mentioned the main Vampire Academy article as a redirect target. Since that article already has a character list, any thoughts on redirecting this article over there? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to the main article. Vampire Academy#Main characters and Bloodlines (book series)#Characters seem to provide sufficient overview of the main characters relative to the weight required to understand the context of the articles. There are no sources showing the grouping establishes notability to meet GNG or LISTN. This is not a valid offshoot article because it has not been shown that the main articles are overburdened by necessary contextual plot information. Most of what is here is irrelevant for the purposes of a general encyclopedia, so it can be tossed without any issue. ATD concerns seem moot when there is no relevant sourced content to salvage. TTN (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Redirect. As written, it's pure plot summary fancruft. It's time to start cleaning that part of the stable too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Redirect As WP:ATD. Pure plotcruft and FANDOM material that is unsuitable as an article unless RS are added as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:56, 6 August 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 result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Revenants in fiction

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a pure example farm that is almost entirely original research. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete pure fancruft, not a hint of scholarly discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete - Completely made up of trivia, with no actual discussion on the topic or any kind of legitimate sources. Nearly all of the entries are non-notable, and there are huge amounts of WP:OR going on here for a lot of them. Rorshacma (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment: While I agree that the article in its current state is an indiscriminate list of unsourced and disjointed examples, I think there is a concept here which could be notable, if we could locate decent sources. For example, The Encyclopedia of Fantasy has an article on revenants. /Julle (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:TNT applies; the article could be rewritten as something decent, but there is no point in keeping it as it stands Dronebogus (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
If you take another look, you will see that it no longer resembles the article that was taken to AfD. (: I hope someone else will be able to edit it further; I don't have as much time to spend on it as I'd have preferred. /Julle (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
While I applaud your efforts, the problem now is that what is left without the list of trivia is basically the exact same topic as the main Revenant article, and thus there is still no actual reason for this to exist as a separate topic. Rorshacma (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Removing the list turns it into a WP:DICDEF. Different issue, same conclusion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Revenant is about the folkloristic concept, though, with discussions about various mythological undead like the draugr. The consciously fictional concept, used in literature rather than folklore, seems different enouh, to me, to fit better in a separate article. Ashley's SFE article, for example, avoids the mythological even to explain the background, and focuses solely on the literary. We could, of course, add the fantasy revenants to the revenant article instead, but since they migth better be understood as two related but separate traditions and concepts I wonder if that's the best solution? /Julle (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@Julle: I believe an article move to Revenant (monster) would be in order if this article ends up being rewritten, much like the Gargoyle (monster) article that I made a while ago. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Works for me. I have no strong opinions on the title, I just feel a) we can probably make something of this and b) I think it works better treated as a separate concept. /Julle (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - That really is the central issue of the many "In Popular Culture" lists on Misplaced Pages. In many cases, there is a potentially notable topic behind it, but the lists are most certainly not an appropriate way to cover it, and do not contain any actually sourced material that would be useful in developing a prose article. Additionally, a lot of times, there is not even a real reason for the "portrayal in media" subject to even be split out of the main article if it were not just a overly long list of non-notable trivia. This one is a perfect example of that - the Revenant article is not particularly long, so adding a short section discussing the topic in prose format using sources like the one you presented would certainly be preferable over this separate, messy trivia list. Rorshacma (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I took a look at some sources I've used to salvage similar articles (see e.g. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination)). I was most hopeful that The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters (edited by Jeffrey Andrew Weinstock) might have an entry, but it didn't (it instead refers to the "Monsters in Video Games" entry, where the only mention is in the sentence Doom is is particularly renowned for its monster design, with monsters like the revenant, hellknight, and the end boss Cyberdemon regularly noted as iconic monsters of video gaming.). I also thought Icons of Horror and the Supernatural: An Encyclopedia of Our Worst Nightmares (edited by S. T. Joshi) might have an entry, but it didn't. I found no relevant entry in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy (edited by Gary Westfahl) or the other sources I checked either. There's nothing wrong with the entry in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy discovered by Julle of course, but we would need more than that to write a decent article on this. TompaDompa (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Merge to revenant. There is some decent stuff here and if someone wants to recreate the article one day when its needed due to the main articles size then they can do that, as of now both are too short for it to be really necessary.★Trekker (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to the main article. The current content seems particularly useless and there's no immediate sign of improvement, so I'd say start from scratch in the main article if the topic does have any potential. TTN (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete: The old article was a list of trivia. The current one is a dictionary definition. Regardless, there in nothing worth preserving here. It needs to be destroyed so that something else can be built. ―Susmuffin 17:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Merge. SFE entry is reliable, but more would be needed. I am concerned whether this is not overlapping with some similar concepts, frankly, the entire concept of revenant is fuzzy. For now I'd merge this to said article (revenant), it's not like it's long, and source discussion above doesn't inspire hopes that we will find much. Ps. From article on revenant: "The term "revenant" has been used interchangeably with "ghost" by folklorists. While some maintain that vampires derive from Eastern European folklore and revenants derive from Western European folklore, many assert that revenant is a generic term for the undead". Ghosts in fiction/Ghosts in popular culture would be another valid target (it's surprising those are red links...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Selective Merge to Revenant. There does appear to be some secondary coverage of this topic, but clearly not enough to justify a WP:SPLIT from the main article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The result was merge to Lisa's Belly. Liz 03:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Wendy Sage

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is about a character that seemingly only had a major role in one episode, and since all sources are about a single attribute of her character, I would say this is as close to a case of WP:ONEEVENT that a fictional character could reach. As for alternatives, a redirection to List of The Simpsons characters or List of recurring The Simpsons characters would be fine. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Merge with Lisa's Belly. If the character becomes recurring that a entry can be made at the recurring characters page. For now I think it is sufficient for this information to be in the episode's page. Rhino131 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Keep: I'm actually going to have to disagree with this one, Oinkers. Despite being a one-off character (so far), her being a breast cancer survivor has definitely given her some attention. In the article itself, we have a few sources about her. It's not like we're scrapping passing mentions from episode reviews here. Furthermore, WP:ONEEVENT pertains to living people, not fictional characters. MoonJet (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Admittedly, claiming it to be a violation of WP:SUSTAINED would make more sense. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Merge to Lisa's Belly. All content is tied to that, and both articles are barely straddling the "stub" size status. No need for a split. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 14:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Merge to Lisa's Belly. Fandom is thataway. SWinxy (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The result was redirect to The Magical Monarch of Mo. Sandstein 12:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Mo (Oz)

(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 plot details. Cannot be improved because there is no significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources that can provide out-of-universe context. Jontesta (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete - I was going to immediately suggest Redirecting this to The Magical Monarch of Mo, but then I realized that the actual title doesn't even make much sense for the Redirect, as the country isn't part of Oz. Regardless, this should not be a stand alone article, as there is not a single source included in the article, and searching for sources turns up no actual significant coverage of it in reliable sources. I have to say my favorite part of the article is the fact that it includes a picture of a map that the land is not even on, with the caption that it should be on there - I got a chuckle out of that. Rorshacma (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep or merge with The Magical Monarch of Mo. To the closer if the outcome is either merge or delete, I ask that you transfer the description of Mo to that page in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE even if you have to establish a settings section for it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep notable subject. WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment - WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument in AFDs, particularly for articles that don't have a single source actually backing up any claim of being a notable subject. Rorshacma (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Redirect to The Magical Monarch of Mo @Rorshacma: You are probably right it was the kid in me that IARd, it is likely better redirected to the novel. The novel has much more relevance, File:Princess Truella on a stork - Project Gutenberg eText 16529.jpg File:King Mo fights the Purple Dragon - Project Gutenberg eText 16259.jpg. Some sources do exist, but it would be a stretch of our notability guideline to piece them together for this fictional land. It is certainly not as notable as the Frank Baum's other fictional Land of Oz. Lightburst (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete or very light merge to Land of Oz#Geography as something like a "neighboring countries" section. The topic does not appear to need a standalone article without some reliable sources stating its real world importance. TTN (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to The Magical Monarch of Mo or Land of Oz#Geography. Noting to merge (unreferenced), zero apparent notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to The Magical Monarch of Mo or Land of Oz#Geography. I found no evidence that would support a case for the subject retaining its own page. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to The Magical Monarch of Mo. I don't think Land of Oz#Geography is a good target, because there's almost nothing in that article to educate a reader seeking information about the redirect topic. I am sympathetic to Rorshacma's argument, but I think that "(Oz)" as a disambiguation is really referring to that universe in general, and not just the borders of the pretend nation. As the article is completely unsourced, I would be against a merge unless reliable sources are added in support. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. I have to discount the one "keep" opinion because it contains personal attacks. There is just not enough substantive discussion here for consensus. Sandstein 09:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Cena–Orton rivalry

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. As it appears to largely be a plot summary, it fails WP:PLOT. There is only one source which comes close to indicating its importance, which is a primary source from WWE itself (no independent or seconadary sources which are preferred to establish importance) which simply labels it as Cena's top feud in a top 10 list. Again, this fails to establish notability. — Czello 22:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Sports, and Wrestling. — Czello 22:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment As far as I see it this is a topic that potentially could be shown to be notable (same with other wrestling rivalries), but, since Cena and Orton already have articles that cover this topic better there is not really any use for this article as of now. I'd say delete since neither man is more of a primary target for a redirct. ★Trekker (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep The Cena–Orton rivalry is equivalent to the Federer–Nadal rivalry rivalry in professional wrestling, both tp stars in the WWE with a lengthy acclaimed feud, acknowledged as John Cena (one of the biggest name in wrestling history)'s greatest rivalry per this and many other WP:RS beside this: , every line is well sourced so its notable, this is Czello vendetta against me, as his friend User:ItsKesha who has been topic banned from wrestling and is under 1 month GS due to numerous edit wars and content disputte, as proven here Czello crying ver his banning: , the duo have a hostory of teaming against other editors including myself as in the John Cena artcile: , so yes this is pure biased "meating" and neglecting countless unreliable articles they tartget the one I made which is WP:GTS and also this article is sufficiently sourced and this rivalry is well acknowledged in the world of professional wrestling. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I used to have huge respect for Czello but am shocked by this vendetta and teaming with topic banned user, also there are many many sources besides WWE's own (which is widley accepted WP:PW/RS that cites this feud's greatness: and are just two out of many examples, people can google it to find its extreme notability. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

every line is well sourced so its notable No, this isn't how it works. You need to establish the importance of this feud, and so far no sources do. The one that comes the closest is the first one, which is simply a top 10 list. If you feel that you think any of the sources do establish its notability, please list them. I'm going to ignore the rest of this comment as it's a rather bizarre and conspiratorial violation of WP:AGF. — Czello 21:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You neglected the two sources I pointed above, and I am adding yet another f countless WP:RS like this to the article: . Dilbaggg (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Bleacher Report can only be used for minor statements like match results per WP:PW/RS. Republicworld is not reliable per the same link. I will grant you that Pinkvilla does say it is "arguably" on of the greatest feuds - but this link is nowhere to be found in the article. Would you like to add it? — Czello 11:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Czello bleacher report said a minor statement here, that this is one of the feud that defined a generation, its a reliable WP:RS and even has its own article Bleacher report and PW is under WP:GS so their opinion on RS doesn't apply much at the moment. Anyway they only asked to refrain from pre 2013 sources, the source I gave is 2022, thank you for acknowledging the other one though. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"Minor statement" means an undisputed fact like "Orton won this match", not "one of the greatest feuds ever" - which, again, the source doesn't actually say. What statement are you hoping to source with the Bleacher Report link? If you have a definitive source somewhere that Bleacher Report is reliable for more than that, I'll happily concede - but I took your suggestion and looked through the WP:RSN archives and I could find nothing but criticism. Also the pre-2013 comment means this is when it went from "not reliable" to "partially reliable".

I'm happy to add the Pinkvilla link - I know you believe I have some kind of vendetta against you or your articles, but honestly all I want is from this to be better sourced, which Pinkvilla does. — Czello 11:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok Czello, thanks for acknowledging, we are fellow editors and we should do our best to make great articles like this, glad you understand how notable this is, best wishes bro. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment I think, Dilbaggg, you should Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith from Czello and not a conspiracy against you or your articles. Now, about the article, I think the Orton Cena feud is a good feud, but the article is just a list of results and reports. Worst, it's WP:In-Universe. Ex: "Orton then attacked Cena's father who was sitting at ringside by punt kicking him and seriously injuring him." The article has no mention about real life events. How the feud was received, why the feud it's so important. Just a 411Mania mention and Cesaro comment. But there are no other sources about the feud. If you work on the article, it may be a keep, but this adds nothing to the Cena/Orton articles. Sadly, there are no other wrestling feuds, the Hogan/Andre also has in-universe. The Federer/Nadal article has sections like Analysis, competitive dynamic... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

All wrestlers aricles have some plot elements, but this also has many things like how the matches were seen, the praises of the matches, the criticims of the lenght of the feud and also how Cena and Orton views each other irl. Like Nadal-federer in tennis and Messi–Ronaldo rivalry in football this article shows emphasis in oe of the most prominent rivalry in pro wrestling. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg: I think Federer–Nadal rivalry is a great example of what this article could be but isn't. The #Analysis section or the #Relationship and competitive dynamic details why their feud was so significant. If that kind of notability were established in this article I'll happily withdraw this deletion nomination. — Czello 12:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Is there a list of WWE storylines, major events, or some such? The coverage of the topic seems to be limited to trivial pop culture articles at a first glance, but being merged to a list would make sense. TTN (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero 09:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Guerillero 18:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Law and Chaos

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A user generated essay that is entirely WP:OR. There are no reliable sources to confirm this as a topic or write anything significant about it, which means this article cannot meet most policies and guidelines, including WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:NOT. Jontesta (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Weak delete. OR is a major concern. That said, the topic may be notable (see ex. this book). Weakly leaning towards WP:TNT due to OR concerns, however. I was going to ping editors active in recent Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stormbringer but after re-reading a certain (first) comment there I've lost any motivation, someone who cares more can do so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
No comment on the article, but pinging editors from that previous AFD for comment here: User:Artw, User:Rorshacma, User:Jclemens, User:Necrothesp, User:LEvalyn, User:Julle. BOZ (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep ...is entirely WP:OR. There are no reliable sources to confirm this as a topic or write anything significant about it... Another deletion rationale by Jontesta which has no basis in reality. We have one secondary source already in the article which discusses the topic, showing both the claims "entirely WP:OR" and "no reliable sources to confirm this as a topic" as false on a quick glance. A bit of WP:BEFORE search shows, in addition to the find by Piotrus: "Fractal Fantasies of Transformation" links the concept from Moorcock to scientific notions, as well as John Milton and William Blake; the book Chaos Ethics discusses the concept in multiple places; Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy discusses the D&D side of things specifically on pages 36-37 and more generally in the whole essay from 29-47. So plenty to fullfill the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NOT, even though the list of existing sources is far from complete. I think both WP:V and WP:OR are very minor problems, as most of the as yet unreferenced content refers to the primary sources, it is very likely most content could be verified in that way. All that said, I think the article currently has significant problems: For such a broadly titled subject it focusses too much on the concept within Moorcocks works. And it has way too much plot summary of those works. All that could be solved with trimming, sourcing, and introducing more analysis based on those secondary sources which do exist. I think this is no case where WP:TNT applies, as in my view the referenced content, as well as limited plot summary, would be kept in "good" article on this topic. Daranios (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@Daranios The problem is the lack of footnotes. With those kind of topics, WP:FANCRUFTy WP:OR is common enough it's difficult to WP:AGF that the author "just forgot to add footnotes" (note: the original version of this essay, not changed much since 2006, had no references at all). PS. For best practices, I'd like to see the nom (Jontesta) confirm that they couldn't find references fo the content in the article. I think our findins strongly suggest the topic is notable, but nobody has debunked that this may be OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@Piotrus: The lack of footnotes obviously is not best practice. But one does not have to assume that the author "just forgot to add footnotes", either. I have no problem to assume in good faith that the author knew what they were doing when the article was created until proven otherwise, as I think doing plot summary without footnotes would have been common practice back then. E.g. WP:ALLPLOT was not yet written at that point. Actually looking into when a lack of footnotes would be an argument for deletion, I have only seen reason no 7. of the Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy apply: Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. If the the nominator Jontesta were to do such a search describe their findings, that would indeed be helpful. Assuming for a moment that such "thorough attempts to find reliable sources" would actually show that the unreference sections could not be verified, that still would be no reason to delete the whole article: If we were to keep only the referenced parts, we would still have a decent stub on the topic. And we already know now that there are secondary sources out there which would allow to expand such a hypothetical stub into a full article in the future. Daranios (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
In good faith, the author tried their best, but the resulting piece is likely WP:OR that clearly violates WP:V. Now that the lack of references has been called out, this needs verification or cutting down to size, removing all referenced content. Which, I am afraid, means not even a single sentence would remain, would it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I do think the plot summary content should be trimmed, but not removed entirely. clearly violates WP:V would mean that the missing references could neither be found in secondary nor primary sources. That could be decided only by a person who knows the relevant primary sources quite well, or has done the thorough attempts to find reliable sources which is the phrasing in the policy. And what would remain if one would remove all un-referenced content? The referenced content! I've allowed myself the fun to roughly count, and get to ca. 350 words of referenced content, which is more than one common threshold for being considered a stub already. Daranios (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete - This isn't written from reliable third party sources and fails WP:GNG. At times it looks like it's talking about the fiction of Michael Moorcock, and other times it drifts into other fiction that deals with chaos (which is a lot of fiction), making WP:SYNTH connections that aren't implied by the sources. But I see the source from Piotrus that could at least expand Multiverse (Michael Moorcock) (which is also in bad shape). Would not object to a merge or redirect but right now there is nothing to WP:PRESERVE here. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The influence of Moorcock's work on D&D, Warhammer, Babylon 5 and chaos magic are all attested in secondary sources, so no WP:SYNTH there. Not so sure about Magic and Mayhem, though. Daranios (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep GNG is met per the sources already discussed, so the fact that it could be written less about specific plot points is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. This is not limited to Moorcock; Babylon 5 based its central conflict around these same concepts. If anything, there's far more room to include semi-related topics from searches like this. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Argyably it's a large philosophical concept, but here the article is 100% about Moorcock. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Arguably, both the the broader topic of Law and Chaos in fiction and the narrower of Law and Chaos in Moorcock's work + influences have enough secondary source to establish notability. It can be decided outside the deletion discussion which one this article should cover in the end. Daranios (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Plenty has been written about the concept in relation to fantasy literature and gaming, easily enough to satisfy WP:GNG. However, I think the article should be repurposed to cover the concept in general and not just Moorcock's take on it, hugely influential though that may be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Reply Notability requires verifiable evidence, and I don't see evidence that Law and chaos in fiction would be an article that has WP:SIGCOV. TV Tropes is not a reliable source and I am unconvinced that this wouldn't just lead to many of the same issues with the current article, which warrants deletion in its current form. Jontesta (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jontesta: Upon a closer look it seems to me that Moorcock's conception of Law and Chaos appears in so many secondary sources that it does not make sense to write a Law and chaos in fiction article divorced from what we have here - at least if we keep to the term "law and chaos" and don't expand to include "Order and chaos in fiction" and "Chaos in fiction". That said, what do you say to the evidence of all the secondary sources already presented, which discuss Moorcock's Law and Chaos and do link his conception to other literature? Additional ones would be here (pp. 55-57), here (p. 239) and here (short but enlightening comment p. 130). Daranios (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Daranios Any chance you could try to rewrite this or start a new article on the broader concept reusing parts of this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Nope, sorry, someone else should tackle this. I have hardly started with the last such "job" I've been offered. Daranios (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Weak Delete - I agree with Necrothesp that the concept of law and chaos as a whole, and its representation in fiction, definitely is an article that should be quite possible. However, this article just isn't it - its almost entirely just overly detailed, unsourced, in-universe plot summaries of the works of Michael Moorcock specifically. As stated multiple times above, this is a philosophical concept that goes far beyond the works of a single author, and having this current article be a massive fan-wiki style essay on that one author's work just gives a completely unbalanced view of the subject, and is a case of WP:TNT being the far preferable solution to leaving it as it is. I would probably be fine with keeping it if nearly all of the current material was removed, leaving just the bit of sourced material in the lead on Moorcock's work and the sourced material in the "Cultural influences" as a stub. But, the current article should definitely not be kept in its current form. Rorshacma (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete or selective merge to Michael Moorcock. The in-universe content is OR and WP:NOTPLOT. The section about influences on other works is better placed in the writer's article, if it is to be retained. Sandstein 11:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete or redirect - The current content seems like it would hinder efforts to work this into something that meets GNG. Even if the core topic may be notable, there is no point in keeping OR indefinitely until someone decides to work on it. TTN (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Naagin 6]]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time

Categories: