Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Light (fantasy)


 * 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 delete as original research. If the subject is really about the commonalities and differences between the meanings of "light" in various genres, then there must exist reliable source coverage about the commonalities and differences. Without such coverage, this article amounts to pure WP:SYNTHESIS. A redirect might have been a good alternative although, as was pointed out, there isn't a good target available. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Light (fantasy)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Without sources defining the meaning or use of light in fantasy, this all seems original research with at least 7 definitions of light in fantasy. No evidence that the subject itself meets notability (although I admit it's hard to search for). Doug Weller talk 16:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research--Yopie (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete You have to jump through some logical hoops to call all examples of the 'good guys' the "light". Most stories don't have a light side, they just have a dark side and then the normal guys. Harry Potter is used as an example here, but while there are dark wizards in HP, never are the good guys referred to as 'light' wizards. The dark and light sides of the force in star wars are not the same as other fantasy or sci-fi, and the same is true of other stories, you can't correlate all of these disparate themes into one concept and call it an article topic. What we are looking at here is good and evil, used as themes in fantasy, sci-fi, and popular culture. If this topic is to be covered at all I say cover it in a section on literature or pop culture in the good article. However, we still need a WP:TNT as there is too much original research here. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Combining related facts into a cohesive text is not original research. The content is furthermore common knowdledge, and not original at all, it is as old as Egypt. If you think the text isn't good enough, improve it. If you think more sources are needed, add them. If the search isn't easy, give it time. Don't throw the topic away just because a new user hasn't produced the perfect article in one edit. Pris La Cil (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Combining related unsourced 'facts' is definitely original research. I am not suggesting we throw out the topic. I suggested that we expand the topic at a subsection in Good, I would suggest a merge, but I firmly believe that the current article needs to be TNTed and the topic restarted from scratch using sources this time. this entry in this encyclopedia of Fantasy and Sci-fi is probably a good place to start for such a topic creation (it is the only source that specifically uses the 'light' terminology that I have found). This has some useful stuff. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  06:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  06:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep What Pris says. Why the hurry, I told you I was adding sources. Dolberty (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources you added are not reliable sources. The encyclopedia I linked above is useful, but the other sources you added are either not reliable (the ones I removed) or are sources about a specific game/book that are being used to represent the entire genre (WP:SYNTHESIS). —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment None of them are independent sources meeting WP:RS discussing the subject. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge, after editing, with a related article -- video game content can certainly be encyclopedia-worthy if there are sufficient quality sources, but linking multiple threads together under the unifying theme of "light" may not be enough. Consider the guidelines at WP:TRIVIA, the advisory essay at WP:CRUFT, and the essay at WP:POPCULTURE, all of which have some bearing on this article. (Also this xkcd.) What really distinguishes these things besides their being "light"? Are there other treatments of "light" in scholarly texts, video game industry articles, literary criticism or media commentary? I suggest kicking a draft around with the folks who specialize in this sort of stuff, maybe Articles for creation or somewhere like that. I will note that, at the very least, the formatting of this article is quite good, so you've at least got the mechanics of editing down, which is nice. RexSueciae (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @RexSueciae To clarify, are you voting to merge (if so where?) or to draftify the article? I agree with draftifying and sending it to articles for creation, in its current form I don't think it is suitable for a merge, but with considerable work and if more sources can be found, it could potentially make a standalone topic or could be a section at good. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  15:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This page is currently an orphan, and there's no coherent concept across fantasy.  The Force (Star Wars), White magic, and "light magic" in Dungeons and Dragons are all different. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course they are different. Because it's fiction, they're not allowed to copy each other! This article is about what they have in common and how they differ. Dolberty (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A dictionary lists multiple meanings of a word under a single heading; an encyclopedia has separate entries for different concepts. Most of these topics are already covered in other articles: Black-and-white dualism, White, White magic, and for individual franchises The Force (Star Wars), Character class (Dungeons & Dragons), Might and Magic VI: The Mandate of Heaven, etc. (Draftify would be fine, as long as it's reshaped into different articles; I don't think a redirect is suitable unless others believe it a likely search term.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Black-and-white dualism is an unintelligible mess, and the other articles are either non-fiction or individual. Dolberty (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Should redirect to the missing Good and evil (fiction)... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not missing. Good and evil in fiction is no different from good and evil in non-fiction. However light is not the same as good, as the article explains. Did you read it? Dolberty (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR; agree that any proposition for merge / redirect falls at the atrget stall. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  15:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, that's not a valid reason. If you see original research (where?), improve the text. Pris La Cil (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pas vrai, malheuresment. WP:OR is one of the three core content , and as such is covered within WP:DEr14 and per 'rticles should be kept or rejected because of ideas such as notability, verifiability, and lack of original research', if the article requuires a fundamental rewrite. See also WP:PGL; you might be thinking of WP:POORLY. Cheers, &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  16:54, 14 July 2017 (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.