Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Ankh-Morpork City Watch - 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:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Folken de Fanel (talk | contribs) at 17:07, 11 September 2012 (→Ankh-Morpork City Watch). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:07, 11 September 2012 by Folken de Fanel (talk | contribs) (→Ankh-Morpork City Watch)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Ankh-Morpork City Watch

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

A fictional organization in a series of popular novels. Tagged for failing WP:N since January, entirely written as in-universe plot summary incompatible with WP:WAF, and entirely unsourced. Such content is better suited to fan wikis; any necessary plot summary belongs in the article about the respective novels or in one character list (there are currently far too many).  Sandstein  17:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

  • close as an issue outside the remit of AfD. Once again, UK fiction articles are being AfDed for lack of non-primary sources whilst US subjects that have exactly the same problems are left unchallenged. The only difference is whether the cast of Big Bang Theory would see them as collectable.
This belongs on a Pratchett wiki. Does it also belong here? That's a _massive_ question. Are articles of this depth, based on the primary use of the fictional source, appropriate for WP? That's a real question, and a biggie. Much too big for AfD. If the answer is no, then that's a lot of material needing to be destroyed. As it is though, AfDing odd articles in drips and drabs has become a popularity contest, not an objective application of policy. No one is going to go after an article like this, with exactly the same problem, if it's about X Men or Twilight. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
See WP:WAX. My personal opinion is that inappropriate fancruft should be removed regardless of national origin (even if, as in this case, I am a fan of the series in question). As to the general question you pose, it has been answered in the negative by way of WP:N and WP:WAF, both of which are community-accepted content guidelines.  Sandstein  14:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Question: I'm not voting either way, but I'd like to ask a question. I know that when you have an exceptionally large cast of characters in a notable series, it's customary to have the characters have their own list page. I've also seen where some of the more noticeable groups are pulled into separate categories in themselves, as evidenced by Death Eater. I'm not trying to use that as an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just asking whether or not this would be salvageable if we were to turn it into a list entitled List of Ankh-Morpork City Watch characters and include history sections for each character. I'd say that we could merge any pertinent data into a list of characters for the Discworld series, but we don't actually have a current list of characters for the series, surprisingly enough. In any case, I'm just wondering if such an article did exist, if there would be enough of the characters of the AMCW to warrant it having a list of its own.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • question The issue here isn't that the topic is fictional, but the lack of non-primary sources for it. So how about adding some. Would Stephen Briggs Discworld Companion series be considered an acceptable source? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Discworld per GiantSnowman. A smerger is also appropriate. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. There is at least one detailed critical study on the City Watch, even if for some reason I can't get it directly in a GScholar search (and unfortunately don't have current access to a copy): "The City Watch" by Edward James, in Butler, Andrew M., James, Edward and Mendlesohn, Farah, eds. Terry Pratchett: Guilty of Literature, ISBN 1-882968-32-8. It also gets quite a number of GBooks and GScholar hits (particularly if you search on "Ankh-Morpork"+"City Watch" or "Discworld"+"City Watch" rather than the article title), even discounting those authored or co-authored by Pratchett - I'd guess that some of them are usable, the difficulty being sorting them out from the primary sources and passing mentions. PWilkinson (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite appropriately. Major fictional organization that spans dozens (literally, dozens) of books, which have been adapted into many separate BBC teleprograms. The search results by PWilkinson are instructive, but only begin to scratch the surface of literary interpretation that likely exists. Sorry to have been so late to the discussion, but I've been out of the country. Clearly meets the GNG, and should be kept rather than upmerged. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Note also that a large part of the article is a character list, full of otherwise non-notable characters, and large fictional franchises, such as Game of Thrones, have multiple character lists when there are too many non-notable characters to maintain in one place. Note further that per what links here (or, even better, this list of redirects), this exists as the target of many previous merges, as part of an effort to clean up an even-more messy morass of prior Discworld watch character articles, and as such its removal would create a quite a large hole in our coverage and linkage of the topic. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've been asked to support an extension of this discussion so that more sources may be found. I'm fine with that. In substance, I'm ambivalent: if there is substantial commentary about the City Watch, as is alleged above (I don't have access to these sources), a separate article might be technically justified. But that does not change that the current article reads like something out of a fan site. If kept, a stubbing (in preparation for a complete rewrite) might be needed, or a stubbed upmerger until somebody actually writes some encyclopedic content based on these sources.  Sandstein  06:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 12:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: It seems to be accepted on Misplaced Pages for articles about major entities from fictional universes to be supported mainly by works related to that universe, if the universe as a whole is notable (e.g. Luke Skywalker). By that standard, this article can easily be supported by the Discworld novels/films themselves, supported by the existing tertiary source and possibly another one like Lspace. That is in fact the basis of many of the Discworld Wikiproject articles. -- BenTels (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually no, it is not accepted on WP to have articles on fictional entities entirely (or mainly) sourced to primary sources (ie the novels/films themselves), even if the original fiction is notable in itself. See the policy WP:PSTS: "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". For more details, see also guidelines, such as WP:GNG which states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article "Sources" for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator". As for the universe as a whole being notable, see WP:NRVE: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". Specifically on fiction, see WP:WAF which details the appropriate use of primary/secondary sources. Conclusion, to be notable, an article about a fictional element must be mainly based on secondary sources. Whether the article being discussed here is suitable for inclusion does not depend on its appearance in various Discworld works, but on its appearance in secondary sources that discuss it in detail.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Given how roundly and thoroughly your viewpoints just got repudiated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bruenor Battlehammer (2nd nomination) and the subsequent DRV you filed, don't you think it more appropriate to go study how Misplaced Pages's actual handling of the notability of fictional topics differs from your viewpoints about it? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, can you point out to any actual policy or guideline contradicting what I wrote ? Given that policies and guidelines represent the actual standard and practices of the Misplaced Pages community, I find them more relevant than your own misinterpretation and misrepresentation of an unrelated discussion (btw, in your haste to find something to throw at me, you also seem to have overlooked the fact that DRV raised strong doubts as to actual article notability and strength of arguments). I would ask you to stop following me around to write your little comments on me, but you're making such a good job at embarassing yourself, I wouldn't want to disturb the master at work...Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Categories: