Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pathfinder books


 * 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. Except for one editor, whose interpretation ("does not have an article" = "not notable") does not match the actual guidelines, specifically WP:LISTCRITERIA, no one argues that the entries on the list are not notable. A merge can always still be considered and proposed on the talk page(s) if this does not meet the WP:SPINOUT rules but even the nominator admits that this content might be included in the main article,

As for the other "arguments", WP:VAGUEWAVE is that way.  So Why  08:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

List of Pathfinder books

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NOTz INDISCRIMINATE. I'm not sure this would be suitable for content anywhere, but it certainly shouldn't be a separate article  DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Might want to fix a few typos there...anyway, why is this not a valid WP:SPINOUT of Pathfinder Roleplaying Game? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * excessivedetail, and unencycopedic content. Conceivably the main article might have a list of books, without other details.  DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete this festival of WP:NOTDIR. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. This list-based article graduated from AfC into mainspace. This is obviously not indiscriminate, as there are clear inclusion criteria. Excessive detail is not a policy-based reason for deletion. Unencyclopedic is a vague term that is often a synonym for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (DGG, I know you can craft a better AfD rationale than this.) Anyway, it's good that the lists have some references, albeit they are mostly primary refs. I wasn't able to find in-depth independent sources discussing these books as a set. It likely fails notability criteria like WP:GNG. But given than the game is largely based on these books, it makes perfect sense to merge this content into the main Pathfinder article. Excessive information and catalogue-like info, such as the Code and Link columns, can be trimmed as a matter of routine editing. Per WP:ATD, a merge of content is preferred over deletion when there is verifiable material. --Mark viking (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Really folks?  You do realize we can find reviews in the mainstream press (not that mainstream is required) of these books in places like Forbes .  Even the obscure ones have mainstream reviews .  This isn't a close call.  It's much better to have a page listing these than to have 20+ articles covering the individual books.  And yes, the series as a whole has plenty of reviews too.  And even coverage of _sales_ of groups of these books (.  Again, this isn't close.  Hobit (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are literally hundreds of reviews in reliable sources of these books. The 3 I linked to I found just by doing a quick news search.  *Throws hands in the air in frustration* Hobit (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hobit, or merge per Mark viking. BOZ (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hobit. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Vorbee (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? Given that many of the books have enough coverage to have their own articles, do you feel that having those articles (which clearly would meet WP:N) is somehow better than having them all in a merged list? Hobit (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- per WP:NOTCATALOGUE; an indiscriminate listing of non notable titles. I don't see any reason to merge this to the suggested target; that would be indiscriminate clutter and WP:UNDUE. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like this may end up deleted or merged, but I'd really like to know why you think these are non-notable. The books have tons of reviews (I've listed a few above) including mainstream press reviews.  Could you explain your thought process on calling them non-notable? Hobit (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The list would be more viable if the books had articles, i.e. were considered "Wiki-notable". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but they don't yet. And I'd argue they probably shouldn't.  But many, probably most, meet the requirements of WP:N.  Again, I've provided a handful of sources, but a news search for these books turns up plenty more.  Hobit (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per Hobit, though prose should be added to the article using those sources so it is not just a directory like the delete !voters find problematic. Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or (selective) Merge into new Pathfinder Roleplaying Game section. The excessive detail of things like ISBN and Code (whatever that means) should be dropped, and maybe some of the other columns too.  The sources found by Hobit seem to satisfy WP:GNG.  One thing I find really curious is why so many of the books are exactly 256 or 320 pages.  I'm guessing there's something about the printing/binding process that favors those page counts?  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Books are cheaper to offset print if they are multiples of 8, 16, or 32 pages. Basically, print big sheets, fold each sheet a 3, 4 or 5 times, glue or sew them together, and you have a book. --Mark viking (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: It's a little tricky to decide where game review ends and book review begins, but Hobit makes a good case that there are reviews out there that contribute to notability. In the interest of consensus, I could support a keep outcome as an alternative to merge. --Mark viking (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge (with selective trimming as is felt necessary). This isn't a proper stand-alone article, but it's obviously entirely relevant, not indiscriminate, info pertaining to the notable franchise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  08:16, 23 November 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.