Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragonlance artifacts


 * 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   no consensus. There has not been a major shift since the last closure which ended with it being relisted after a DRV discussion. Clearly, the "delete" side has a point when they argue that most of the entries on the list are sourced to novels or gamebooks, something that isn't independent sourcing. The "keep" side of the argument is that the list of items is a reasonable spin-off, and that some of the entries have been covered in independent secondary sourcing. (The latter argument is true for a few of the entries, but not most of them.)

With the community that has participated here equally divided, a "no consensus" is the usual outcome unless there is a violation of a core policy that mandates deletion (issues concerning the notability guidelines are handled on a case-by-case basis). I have looked at the policy, and the main issue is whether we have a violation of the "no original research" policy as most of the article is based on the novels. Yet, the content that is based on that is not analytic or synthesis and can therefore be based on primary sources. The few analytical parts of the article are the ones referenced to e.g. the article by Wolf. The No Original Research policy also forbids basing an article entirely on primary sources, something that this article comes close to doing, but while it is toeing the line, there are some secondary sources in the article as well, so it is probably not across the line. I am therefore closing this with the default outcome of no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!)  17:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Dragonlance artifacts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails Wikipedia's policy on indiscriminate collections of information; we do not list random items that happen to exist in a fictional universe on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the phrase "List of Dragonlance artifacts" is not a useful search term and would cause more harm than good if it were turned into a redirect elsewhere. There is no information on this list that is sourced by reliable, secondary sources that could be merged into another article. The category of "Dragonlance artifacts" is not notable, nor are the individual entries on this list. Neelix (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * chop up, merge and transwiki - While they have in-universe notability, I think the work here is best served by merging the individual artifacts to various pages. Transwiki the lot to a Dragonlance fan wiki.  I do value the work done here by many of the people that take hours out of their lives to put these articles together and I would rather not see such work go to waste. About the only one that I might find is something on the Dragonlances.  I recall a book on modern myths that compared them to Excalibur in terms of their value to the plot. Web Warlock (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * withholding my vote based on the new sources found. I will also look for some. Web Warlock (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - there are now four independent sources describing different items in the list. This list serves as an appropriate merge target for groups of items, and as such it does no good to delete it. BOZ (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as a breakout/daughter article of the parent article Dragonlance, which would be unwieldy to contain them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per BOZ and Casliber. The reason we have list articles of fictional elements is to deal with lots of not-individually-notable elements, from a notable fictional franchise. This should not be hard to understand, yet some people clearly don't seem to understand the benefit. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:LISTN, I don't see any significant coverage of artifacts in Dragonlance as a whole, merely plot summaries (which don't qualify as significant coverage per WP:WHYN) for a few entries. Agree with nominator as to why such lists are not needed on WP. To efficiently deal with not-individually-notable fictional elements, we should just not mention them at all beyond what can fit into plot summary sections of notable articles. The need to make WP a directory or memorial to every fictional device (characters/objects/cities/weapons/ships/etc) that ever existed goes against WP:IINFO and particularly WP:NOTPLOT. Fan wikias are better suited to such a task.Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * LISTN can't be "failed" because it's not exhaustive - it explicitly mentions other ways to achieve list notability that are not being notable as a group. A list that points to the articles of the works where the artifacts appeared is a navigational list valid per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CSC#2 and #3. Diego (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Contains only plot summary from fiction (WP:NOT), no real-world discussion, therefore nothing worthy of inclusion. No reliable independent source is cited that discusses the topic of artifacts in this fictional world, making the topic also fail WP:LISTN.  Sandstein   01:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on sources found . Helps understand a notable series that includes hordes of novels List of Dragonlance novels, some of which I know to be bestsellers, and ample role playing games of course, plus video games, and one film which had many famous people for voice actors but didn't turn out too well.  Places that reviewed the series of books or games, probably gave additional mention to various items in them.   D r e a m Focus  23:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisting note: I have reversed the NAC because of the amount of time spend arguing about the status of the closer rather than the merits of the content. This should not be reclosed by a non-admin. Spartaz Humbug! 07:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Restore this page to previous close - the DRV was closed on the rationale that some pigs are more equal than others; it was totally inappropriate. It demonstrates that a non-admin can make a perfectly fine close (like the reverted close of this AfD), and that admins can make totally wrongheaded closes (like the DRV). Wily D  08:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify on WilyD's comments, Sue Rangell previously closed this discussion as Keep. BOZ (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I very much concur with WilyD, and I think Sue Rangell's close should not have been overturned absent a consensus that it was wrong.  The allotted 168 hours have passed so could one of the anointed few please now close this as "keep"?— S Marshall  T/C 11:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it had a 2-1 ratio to endorse my close...so presumably it will just be brought to DRV again, lol, and we couldn't have THAT :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉  03:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep this as appropriate content fork from the main Dragonlance article. Lists like this are also redirect targets for a lot of likely search terms, and the article has multiple reliable third party sources. —Torchiest talkedits 14:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SPINOFF, "Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies." There isn't a single source dealing with the artifacts as a group, and no significant content going beyond mere mentions within plot summaries, so WP:LISTN and WP:NOTPLOT still aren't met. You're entitled to advocate your "keep everything D&D" ideology, but at least try to make accurate descriptions of what is in the article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete As listcruft, WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of dubious value, no standalone notability for anything there, no encyclopedic need for a 'breakout' article of that magnitude and especially WP:NOT. I'm sure there's a Wikia somewhere that would be a better host for this. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note It has to be noted that Listcruft is an essay, not policy and not a reason for deletion. WP:LC Web Warlock (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I never linked to it, I just like the word. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete patently and irredeemably trivial, fails WP:NOT. Nothing here has even the slightest whiff of real-world notability, not even the pop-culture recognisability that, say, the Bag of Holding has. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no prospect of these items being the subjects of any independent, out-of-universe coverage. Wikipedia doesn't exist to cover the ins and outs of fictional universes.   The Land (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per BOZ and sources. Nor is there any policy-based deletion criteria I can see above.  WP:INDISCRIMINATE certainly doesn't describe this as it's easy to see what does and does not belong, WP:PLOT, stretched this far would apply to any "list-of-characters" list (Dr. Who etc.). And frankly we already had an AfD... Hobit (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources don't adress the topic as a group and don't provide any content besides plot summary. WP:LISTN is not met. Though there might be a tolerance for characters list, there is none for lists of overly trivial plot elements such as this one, see for example AfD/List of Indiana Jones artifacts, AfD/Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, AfD/List of fighting styles in Fist of the North Star, AfD/List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 warships and spacecraft, AfD/List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons...WP:NOTPLOT is policy, to ignore it would require way more than a mere AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, NOTPLOT is policy, and it doesn't support deleting articles but expanding them. Diego (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is not possible here since there is no secondary sources on the group to expand from.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOTPLOT and WP:IMPERFECT, and I quote NOTPLOT: Articles "should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded". It's easy to expand the article with not-in-universe references to the works and years of publication where each artifact appeared, and NOTPLOT instructs us to do exactly that, which couldn't happen if the article is deleted. The article already contains elements that are not plot, such as the books, movies and video games that included. Expand those, and remove what can't be sourced. Even if that results in a stub, WP:STUBBING is a viable alternative and preferred to deleting everything. Diego (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And how do you plan on expanding without sources ? What about WP:LISTN ? "Books, movies and video games" are primary sources and as such are the same as plot. We need secondary and independent sources and real-world coverage.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2013 (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.