Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erevis Cale (2nd nomination)


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

The result was merge to Forgotten Realms. Note that per the concerns below, this would have to be an incredibly selective merge (maybe a sentence or two, with an upgrade in sourcing potentially. To some extent, that's an editorial call at the other end, and this result isn't a mandate for it to be included at the destination, so much as an encouragement to try if desired. Obviously, this article should at that point end up as a redirect. Daniel (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Erevis Cale
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Shows no real world notability – article mostly consists of plot and sourcing relies on a passing mention in one source. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 20:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 20:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 20:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. – Daranios (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Week Keep or Selective Merge to Forgotten Realms. The only test for whether fictional characters are notable and/or should get a standalone article is WP:GNG, which requires the existence of significant coverage by reliable independent sources, not the nebulous idea of whether something has "real world notability" as that is not supported by existing guidelines and policies on Wikipedia. This is what I could find from a quick search, per WP:BEFORE, though they are interviews by independent and reliable sources. There's some usable developmental information to be gleaned from them: Tor.com and io9. Perhaps another alternative is to restructure the article into one that focuses on the Erevis Cale Trilogy book series? Haleth (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge as per above comments, and per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge with Forgotten Realms. I agree with BOZ. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 09:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails GNG/NFICTION. Nothing to merge to Forgotten Realms at present as the article is just a plot summary, and that section is not a place to recreate the deleted List of Forgotten Realms characters. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have several objections:
 * Erevis Cale has more content then just plot summary.
 * List of Forgotten Realms characters exists and is ok.
 * It can be merged to two places, that or Forgotten Realms.
 * Please consider before pursuing a deletion. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 18:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Please see Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms characters. And I don't see non-plot summary content, outside of the list of media he appeared in which is pretty much a part of a plot summary anyway. Where's the reception or analysis to be merged? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The first section (Basics) is not plot summary. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 07:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Of course, it is, just a very bad version that borders on WP:OR. What non-plot summary sources do you suppose might have been used to create it? Not that we can be sure, given this is unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT. PS. Congrats on creating a new Wikipedia account 3 days ago, but what was wrong with your old one? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not have an old one. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 07:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Aha. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by aha? AnotherEditor144talk contribs 09:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I do. At least this makes for a good laugh. Haleth (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , you are not answering my question. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 08:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Not sure if this is a laughing matter, but there is an entire ANI thread on our "new" colleague here... Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Besides, it is not original research, and it could be rewritten. It appears that you want WP:TNT. Keep in mind, it may backfire. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 07:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of independent, reliable sources. We absolutely need to base our articles on secondary sources, not primary sources like the novels or interviews (io9 and Tor). Merging or redirecting is only an option when we can reference claims made by third parties, and none of the sources mentioned meet that threshold. Woodroar (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: None of those sources you mention are included in this article. BOZ (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which sources? AnotherEditor144talk contribs 20:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * io9 and Tor. BOZ (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right. Thank you for your assistance. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 20:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct. I only mentioned them because they were suggested as sources above. The current version of the article has one source, and it's a single sentence about the subject within a single paragraph review of four novels. You can read the review at Don D'Ammassa's website. That's really beyond trivial, but also definitely something I should have mentioned in my deletion rationale above. Woodroar (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is only one source. That is not enough for an article of that length. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 20:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge and redirect or Keep I am unsure about how to count the interviews. Aside from what the author says, they do contain some statements by the interviewers. I am fine with a merge and redirect to Forgotten Realms at this point, which already contains most of what can be done in such a condensed format, but could use another sentence describing what this character is acutally about. The article should not be deleted, as the current content could still be usefull in combination with the found secondary sources at another place and time. Daranios (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say Merge here. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 08:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 23:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I concur with Woodroar's assessment. Articles, even on fictional subjects, unquestioningly need to be based on significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, and these do not appear to exist for this character.  As he pointed out, the single source currently in the article consists of exactly one sentence of coverage on the character, and the only sources suggested so far in the AFD are interviews with the character's creator, which are not secondary. Searching for additional sources beyond that turn up nothing further outside of trivial mentions. Rorshacma (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - As an aside, it looks as though an anonymous IP user already carried out a merge of this article to Forgotten Realms during the course of this AFD, despite a consensus to doing so not yet being established. Rorshacma (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All the editor did was add a summary-style sentence or two though, which I thought is appropriate and adequate. I would have done the same myself. They did not unilaterally merge and redirect the article to the main FR article as your words might suggest. Haleth (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per all of the above.  Tucker  Gladden  👑 02:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucker Gladden (talk • contribs)
 * Merge as a compromise. The interviews are not independent but do give some verifiable content that could be preserved as part of another notable article. Archrogue (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Forgotten Realms. This character doesn't merit an entire page, but should be at least merged and not deleted per se. KJS ml343x (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2021 (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.