Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragonlance artifacts (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 delete.  Sandstein  19:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

List of Dragonlance artifacts
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unnecessary plot information that fails WP:NOTPLOT and maybe GAMEGUIDE if you stretch it a bit. None of the few non-primary sources provide significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. They are just trivial mentions of no worth to this article. Such information should be summarized in the main article per WP:WAF. There is no justification for needing so much context on in-universe items in a general encyclopedia without the backing of real world information. These belong on a fan wiki. The previous AfD does not appear to have brought forth any sources not yet included in the article either. TTN (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - Entirely comprised of in-universe WP:PLOT information. The vast majority of the content here is unsourced.  The few entries that are sourced are mostly sourced to primary material.  The few non-primary sources being used have almost no coverage of the actual topic - they are reviews of films or games in which one of these items happened to appear, and are mentioned as part of the plot summary of those products.  None of the actual individual items here have their own articles (as well they shouldn't) so this is not useful as a navigational list, and those very brief mentions of one or two of the items in the handful of secondary sources do not discuss the overall concept of the topic, so it fails WP:LISTN.  I would maybe be OK if this were simply redirected to Dragonlance, but nothing should be merged, particularly since the eponymous Dragonlances themselves, the only one of these objects that has a smidgen of notability, are already covered there.  Rorshacma (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: Article is OR FANCRUFT that fails LISTN. There is nothing to merge here because it is all OR based on primary.   // Timothy ::  talk  00:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Dragonlance based on available sources per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Dragonlance: First, the current state of the article is not the decisive point here. Did the nominator do a search for more sources both for the group and the individual items, as should have been done before an AfD according to the relevant guidelines? Because there is no mention of no hits appearing in the respective search engines.
 * Second, there are already secondary sources in the article, if only a few. The deletion voters lament the absence of secondary and non-plot summary sources, but they also oppose the merge of the non-plot summary source by Wolf (only one I can see now, but there it is), even though the corresponding section in the target article is as yet missing both secondary sources any non-plot summary information. So should we preserve such content in Wikipedia or not!?
 * Given the found limitation of secondary sources here a merge could be reasonable. As I don't think the analysis provided would fit very well at Dragonlance, though, I personally would prefer to simply keep it here. Daranios (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, to the extent that you can for such a vague topic, but BEFORE isn't really relevant to the validity of a nomination anyway. It's just an expected courtesy. I see no particular need for the retention of that one reference because it's a rather trivial mention. It also appears Raistlin Majere handles all the necessary context of the item and already contains multiple references to that source, so it's not like there's even any loss. TTN (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment That one secondary source by Wolf does not appear to actually be a reliable source. It is a grad student's thesis, that was published by "Grin", a company that allows you to "Publish for free & earn money" on student papers.  Essentially, it is a self-published student paper, and thus not something we can consider a reliable, secondary source, so no, we should not preserve or merge said content.  If the argument to keep or merge is being based entirely on the existence of that source, I would ask that  and  take another look and reconsider their stance.  Rorshacma (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @TTN Thanks for doing the WP:BEFORE search. A nominator does not have to do this. Just as no contributor has to adhere to WP:GNG. There are no rules on Wikipedia, only guidelines. But if one does follow the WP:AfD guideline (which is the basis of what we are doing here), then you have to, to quote "be sure to ... Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". So such a search is not "just an expected courtesy".
 * @Rorshacma Thanks for looking into this. I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of Wolf, but I agree that it is below the standard set by Wikipedia's guideline.
 * That leaves us with only a few plot-summary sources. I see no reason why we should not preserve them. So until further sources are found, I change my suggestion to merge and redirect. Daranios (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom. Nothing here appears to be eminently merge-able and isn't already in the Dragonlance article. The name also isn't a plausible search, so delete makes sense.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. All WP:PLOT information and fails WP:LISTN / WP:GNG. This isn't the kind of thing where a redirect makes much sense. But have at it. Archrogue (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, no non-plot content to merge to Dragonlance article :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rorshacma for lacking appropriate sources. All sourced to primary sources or trivial mentions. Jontesta (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as article fails WP:NOT and the WP:GNG for having no third-party out-of-universe coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Some more bits from secondary sources have been added/sourced. While mostly (but not exclusively) plot information, that information is at least in part not present in the Dragonlance article. So why should it not be preserved in order to improve that or other related articles? Daranios (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because just like the secondary sources already in the article, the information is barely about the subject of the article. They are on the plots of particular products that happen to mention that one of these appear in them.  For example, the "Dungeons and Desktops" reference you added literally has one sentence describing one of the objects entirely as a plot summary, which is "The party's quest is a desperate attempt to recover the Disks of Mishakal, upon which are inscribed the teachings of the True Gods", which you somehow managed to turn into five separate citations.  The Robertson article also only speaks of a couple of the items merely when summarizing the plots of the franchise, again with only a sentence or two - the entire coverage of the Blue Crystal Staff in the paper is a single sentence, "For example, the story of Riverwind's quest to find the Blue Crystal Staff is mentioned and somewhat opaquely told in Chronicles, Volume i; told as a song in Tales, Volume i; and told in full (and in prose) in Preludes II, Volume i: Riverwind the Plainsman (1990)".  Adding in more sources that are no better than any of the current sources that have already been dismissed as not appropriate for retention does not suddenly make the article now need to be retained.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you care to take another look, I am at this point not arguing for the article to be retained. I have changed my keep vote after your argument.
 * The critique was that there are too few secondary sources, and that all content here based on secondary sources is present in the target article(s). This is not the case. So I still maintain that there is something to be merged.
 * I am still adding to this article instead of another one because I have a faint hope that enough may come up to make it worthwhile. But as already other deletion discussions are raised clamoring for attention, it seems I won't have as much time as I thought.
 * As for me turning one sentence into five different citations: I did not create any of that content. I only found a secondary source for it. And as too many primary and too few secondary sources was one of the starting points of the discussion, I am surprised that adding them should be a negative thing. I also did not split up the one source to make it look more important. But there is primary-based content interspersed. By giving the reference at each respective sentence, I wanted to make clear which is which. If it would be better done differently, please do. Daranios (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Dragonlance, if any of the new content is worth saving, which I somewhat doubt, it can be merged from the article history. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2020 (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.