Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation


 * 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. Closing in a procedural keep, given the canvassing and lack of a policy-based deletion rationale. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The theme of the page is the same as the Mo Dao Zu Shi, these two pages should delete one of them or merge them. Rastinition (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, there are numerous differences between the original novel and the donghua, which is an adaption for it to share the same page.They both deserve their own pages,as having them under the same pages will make it contradictory.
 * Also, if that is the problem, then " The Untamed," which is another adaption should also be considered for deletion going by your opinion since the theme is similar enough.
 * Many other popular fiction have difference pages for the source material and its adaptions.A Song of Ice and Fire has its own page dedicated to the novel and there's a separate page for its TV show Games of Throne. Same with Tolkien's books and adaptions.What makes their pages different then ours? They should also be considered if going by your view.
 * Another question is why has there is several citation removal, as well as structural changes made to our page without any explanation? Shadowyblue09 (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't you know that tumbex is a mirror site of tumblr? And tumblr is a blog site.If you know that and keep using those links, then I'd say you're trying to make link farms. Rastinition (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
 * I do not recommend setting up unreliable sources. I think there is already a corresponding discussion in the past, I don't need additional explanations, such as why not use facebook. Rastinition (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, sure we can change the citations, so please let use look at it without trying to revert my changes again. I think we are allowed that much time to go back and look into it to change unreliable sources. Are we not?
 * I do not get what you mean by," why not use Facebook"?
 * Most importantly, Why is our page being considered for deletion just because it's adaptions, which are vastly differing in plots in important places, has it's own page? Shadowyblue09 (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I illustrate with a hypothetical example.Superman has comics, movies, and novels, but these contents should all be recorded in Superman.If you need to set up multiple pages because of too much content, you can discuss splitting into Superman (comic), Superman (movie), and Superman (novel).So my text uses delete one of them or merge them Rastinition (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Superman is a character, not a book or a show.A novel with various adaption is a much better comparison. If a popular western novel can have its own page and its adaption on separate page, such as I wrote before, " A Song of Ice and Fire" I don't see why we can't keep these two? Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, please undo your changes so I can check it in it's original form (when i last edited) as that will make it easier for me to see where I have unreliable sources and remove them. Also, makes it easier for me to add reliable source. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If a theme is large enough to set up several different pages, WP:disambiguation should be used. Rastinition (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic."
 * Our pages have two different title. There is not conflicts arising from them. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, I warn you not to keep triggering filter 1081 or 550.
 * 03:40, 19 November 2022: Shadowyblue09 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 1,081, performing the action "edit" on Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation. Actions taken: none; Filter description: Unreliable source added by revert, script or bot
 * 03:45, 19 November 2022: Shadowyblue09 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 1,081, performing the action "edit" on Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation. Actions taken: none; Filter description: Unreliable source added by revert, script or bot
 * 03:45, 19 November 2022: Shadowyblue09 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 550, performing the action "edit" on Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation. Actions taken: Tag; Filter description: nowiki tags inserted into an article
 * 03:39, 19 November 2022: Shadowyblue09 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 550, performing the action "edit" on Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation. Actions taken: Tag; Filter description: nowiki tags inserted into an article
 * Rastinition (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please just undo your changes so I can check it in its original state and find more reliable sources? That would make this process easier.
 * Also, please answer my question about the deletion. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The page used to be a draft and was moved to article without being reviewed by anyone.
 * If you restore the page to draft, then you can set up those links in order to improve the content, but when you intend to move the page to the article, please follow the instructions recorded in WP:Draft. As long as this page is an article, I don't agree that these links exist on that page. Rastinition (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but from the rule, it's stated as long as the user was auto- verified, then they could move page to article without having to be reviewed. That is all I have done. I can make changes now as long as you remove the deletion status and undo your changes. I get where you're coming from, but for us to remove this links, you need to undo your changes because now I am confused as to which we have to change and which you added. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, some of the sources that come from "unreliable" are being used because they are the official account of the person/company we are referring to. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to try to restore unreliable sources, or H:NOWIKI, I'm not going to try to hurt the wiki because of your request. Rastinition (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, sure remove those links, but still the point of this discussion is the deletion. I still haven't gotten your answer for that other than Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation's adaption having bit of similarities. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The main editor of the page is your account, and I confirmed with you that the Chinese name of that page is 魔道祖师, right? Because you also have activity records in Mo Dao Zu Shi ,I think you also checked the Chinese name of Mo Dao Zu Shi is 魔道祖师, right? When the Chinese names are exactly the same, you want me to believe that they have completely different themes and content?
 * But I quess what you actually mean is that these two pages should be reserved the pages with the names Mo Dao Zu Shi (animation) and Mo Dao Zu Shi (novel), right? Rastinition (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, they have same name and but unless you have actually read the original novel and watched the donghua in its entirety, how would you be able to see the differences? The theme is the same but due to the page " Mo Dao Zu Shi" being a adaption, it changed some plots that makes it differ from the original novel.
 * The novel is an explicit boy's love novel but the due to the nature of China, the donghua, ( Mo Dao Zu Shi the page) is censored. Due to this there is differences in plots. Having both of them in the same page will present conflicting plots. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes basically what i mean but I want the pages  title to stay as it is right now. People are already familiar with these title and know which name will lead to what, so changing it now will just lead to more confusion. As you have already removed the unreliable links, I am sure that should to okay? Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you still there? Shadowyblue09 (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, just noticed it right now but our page has been reviewed properly and went through the process, so I am not sure why you're claiming otherwise. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * These 2 pages are reserved after being renamed Mo Dao Zu Shi (novel) and Mo Dao Zu Shi (animation).
 * Merge the page to Mo Dao Zu Shi, the page uses novel as the main content, and animation uses == animation == to set in the merged page Mo Dao Zu Shi.
 * I tend to choose one of these two. I should not change my mind again.2 is the original idea, 1 is the idea added after confirming the Chinese name.
 * Rastinition (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So you want me to rename the two pages Mo Dao Zu Shi (novel) and Mo Dao Zu Shi (animation)? Shadowyblue09 (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * it's choose one of the two options right? Shadowyblue09 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weill you be okay with both of them being Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation but with (novel) and (animation). We want to use these names as these are the name being used to promote these works internationally. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK Rastinition (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am expressing my own personal opinion.You don't have to agree with me.But if you agree with part of my opinion, this page can be closed or archived by other accounts in a shorter time.
 * This page will not be closed or archived by me. Rastinition (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * please reply to the message sent right now so we can put this behind us and move on. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please reply. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Will you be okay with both of them being Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation but with (novel) and (animation). We want to use these names as these are the name being used to promote these works internationally. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you still there? Shadowyblue09 (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Both the donghua and the novel are both clearly notable on their own, and there is so much information on both that including them in a single page will make the page cluttered and more difficult to organize and navigate. This discussion should be happening on the respective Talk pages. Chagropango (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am having this discussion for this page. As this is the deletion discussion page. I have been saying the same thing, they both have too much information, some which contradict each other, but they aren't replying anymore so I think their option is the final Shadowyblue09 (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll be logging off for now. I hope we can reach an agreement. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and China. Jumpytoo Talk 08:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator seems to only want to WP:MERGE the two articles together, which is not done through AfD. I note that the other article the nom noted is also AfD'ed by the nom for the same reason, which can lead to major inconsistencies (what if the consensus on each AfD is to keep only the other one?). Jumpytoo Talk 08:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The novel and the donghua has enough difference in plot and also in in their own medium based- details (donghua page as info on OSTs, VAs, artists and etc.) that wouldn't make sense to merge into one single page. This is enough to warrant them their own separate page. Also, as people have stated above, it will lead to inconsistencies and difficulties navigating.   KanaWX (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not sure if bolded keep is important so coming back to do that. My points are above. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep As many have said before, while the novel name for the animation and the Donghua (animation) are the same name, the animation is largely different from the novel, which really does warrant it's own page (Just as how the Untamed is it's own page, yet, it's an adaption of MDZS, but due to the large amount of differences between the two, it has a separate page which information that can't be added to the novel page without it being cluttered up with conflicting information.) Also, in terms of "Unreliable sources" I get how social medias are not always a reliable source, however, many companies and celebrities have official accounts they use to announce key information, such as release dates, little facts here and there, and promotional stuff. For MDZS, the author herself (MXTX), as well as the official teams that are responsible for some of the various adaptations have official accounts they use for announcing information and promoting stuff. Even many reputable news agencies have social media accounts. So, before deleting citations, please look at the context of the links to see if they are official. Once again, this kind of thing of having different adaptations have their own page if there's significant amount of information and such that would otherwise clutter up a page, a page of its own would be created with references to it's overview page and vice versa. So no, I don't support the two pages being merged, and should be kept the way they are. Gsmith1030 (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * )Also, just to note. I have no affiliation with the main editors of the page, nor do I know them in person (or otherwise in any other way, and was not told to say what I was saying. I'm just simply adding on what others were saying in regards to this page. I most likely will not be making further contributions to this page (this discussion page) unless I feel it's needed. Gsmith1030 08:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsmith1030 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment offwiki canvassing is going on archive  archive closers should carefully assess participants to check if they are SPAs/likely to have been canvassed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The twitter account behind the canvassing self-identifies as one of the authors of the article archive. Most of the current participants are presumably part of the friend group that created the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Exo, don't pretend I can't read what you are saying . First off, I'm not a "mod", second WP:CANVASSING is a policy, and sending clearly biased off-wiki notifications is a clear violation of it. If you weren't a coward you'd reveal what you're actual Wikipedia account was and respond to me here. I have no opinions on the merits of this AfD, but canvassing is never an appropriate response. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: MDZS itself is certainly a notable novel, so deletion is definitely out of the question; if the articles are to be merged together, what needs to be done involves picking an article title to put everything under, and moving the content across, where applicable. However, I personally have zero opinion regarding whether the two articles should be merged, and if so, which title they should be merged under. -- benlisquare T•C•E 11:52, 21 November 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.