Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skerrit

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Fey deities#Skerrit. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skerrit

[edit]
Skerrit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki to some fansite that would love this trivia. As for Wikipedia, as per usual for these D&D articles, all the sources are primary/non-independent and the subject fails WP:GNG. The options then are merge redirect or delete. Given that there is only primary source material and the proposed target is also already bloated with only primary sourced materials, merging seems an exercise in shoveling the shit from one corner of the stall to another. Potentially a search term, redirect might be a possibility, but given the history of these articles, it will need to be locked down, and delete is probably preferable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold - I ask that this page be held off from being merged by the closer so that I may do the necessary tasks rather than having to work twice of three times as hard to fix a mergeless redirect that would otherwise be performed. A widescale and large clean up operation is underway as noted by this discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of an incoherent nomination. First "most of the information is about plot details" is not reason to delete. If there is some non plot information, there is a basis for keeping. e.g why need there be " current assertion for future improvement of the article"? The possible of future improvement is present in any subject about which there is continuing discussion, and a merge permits this. What is the meaning of "extended coverage is unnecessary" ? We do not need extended coverage to keep an article, just enough coverage to justify one. We certainly don't need it to keep merged content. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BURO even if your assertion was true, but ...
    • WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WHYN clearly observe that if the only content we can source is plot details, we should not have a stand alone article about the subject.
    • An assertion that "I have some sources that I will be bringing" made on the talk page would have been a reason to not bring the article to AfD at this time, but there was no one indicating that they were searching for data the would have made a courtesy delay in nominating for AfD. or a large number of similarly currently non independently sourced articles of a similar nature that had recently been brought up to standards by sources appearing could have also been raised as a courtesy reason not to nominate a similar article for deletion. However on the contrary, a large number of similarly situated non third party sourced articles have been brought up for deletion and NOT been found to have any third party sourcing forthcoming.
    • A merge most certainly does NOT prevent any future appearance of sources from being used to spin off a child article if the content about this particular subject begins to get to large to be handled appropriately in the merged article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • would you care to address the requirements for a stand alone article put forth in WP:GNG and the fact that we dont have any third party content AT ALL let alone anything that could be considered "significant"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your interpretation of the phrases the nom uses, and I see you have translated it, but it was not meaningful as written. Had it been nominated in accordance with your explanation above, I would have said merge, as I usually do. But tho a merge does not prevent later expansion, it also facilitates the show diminution of content, as has happened hundreds of times to fiction articles.: DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skerrit&oldid=1070631197"