Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night's Watch


 * 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. the delete arguments are founded on solid interpretation of policy and a search for sources and the keep arguments are not policy based and mostly from the arguments to avoid Spartaz Humbug! 04:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Night's Watch

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This backstory of this article is somewhat complicated, so bear with me. In 2006 the article was moved from this title to Night’s Watch (different accent), but somebody copy pasted the article back. The duplication was quickly fixed and this page redirected to Night’s Watch. About a year ago I set out to clean up the articles about this fiction series, which included merging Night’s Watch and similar articles into an article called Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire. The merged article still had a lot of problems and after seeing Articles for deletion/Wars in A Song of Ice and Fire (2nd nomination) close as delete I decided to nominate it for AFD. Articles for deletion/Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire ended in delete and the closer deleted all redirects to the article, which included all of the articles I had previously merged. For some reason this redirect survived and the old 2006 copy pasted article was recently resurrected.

As it currently stands the article is a copyright violation as an unattributed copy paste move of an 5 year old version of Night’s Watch. If this article is kept it could be solved by history merging, but it would be simpler to delete this one and undelete Night’s Watch.

I think it would actually be better to just delete this article, for the same reasons as Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire was deleted. There is zero of evidence of notability for the Night's Watch from the books. They are however getting mentions in reviews of game of Thrones episodes of the television adaption, but these contain no more than "group of dudes guarding a wall of ice" and do not establish notability. We are left with a lot of intricate detail only of interest to fans, which does not belong in wikipedia, but rather a fansite dedicated to this fictional universe. I should also mention that World of A Song of Ice and Fire contains a short description of the Night's Watch and might be an appropriate merge/redirect target if such outcome is reached. Yoenit (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't delete If all article that are dedicated to separate subjects of the books of George Martin are deleted we are left with a few articles that are just lists. That is what happened to the articles that were dedicated to the major noble families. They got merged in a Major houses in A Song of Ice and Fire. Read the article for yourself and compare to for instance the previous House_Targaryen article article. It is a shame that articles of decent quality to which people really like to contribute was sacrificed. And why? Because a rule said that it is better to have low quality articles that are just within the boundaries of relevancy for an encyclopaedia than to have decent articles that are just out of the boundaries. One wonders if we, the people who read and contribute to the articles, are here to satisfy the rules or that the rules are mend to help and motive us to read and contribute! Scafloc (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to World of A Song of Ice and Fire, where it gets mentioned a couple of times in #Westeros. One, the fact is, the parent article was deeemed non-notable and/or too focused on fictional details, so how and why should a child article survive its parent article? Two, the article deteriorates into fictional detail so fast that even though I do watch the associated TV series, I can't grasp it. If you cut all the WP:INUNIVERSE cruft and PLOT and ORIGINAL RESEARCH, what you're left with is "The Night's Watch is an organization dedicated to defending the realms of man in A Song of Ice and Fire. The Night's Watch mans the Wall, a huge fortification built primarily of ice located in the far north of Westeros." That's all you need, and that description fits best into World of A Song of Ice and Fire, with or without leaving a redirect behind. – sgeureka t•c 08:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete or delete: If, as the nominator states, the content is the same as it was in an article deleted by AfD and it still has the same problems, this would fall into G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. As I cannot know for sure since I never read the original article, I have also weighted the individual merits of the article as it is, and the article is unreferenced, the fictional organization does not meet the general notability guideline and the content is a plot-only description of a fictional work. A Song of Ice and Fire may be notable but notability is not inherited to every content fork, and this article is an arbitrary content fork and an unnecessary split. Jfgslo (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As you can see in the article history I tried to delete it under G4, but no admin was willing to bite and it was eventually contested. The content was also not completely the same, as I trimmed a lot of cruft when I merged. Perhaps we can ask an admin to temporarily undelete the deleted pages for review? Yoenit (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic will be gaining additional RS mentions as the HBO series Game of Thrones progresses. This is a spectacularly bad time to try and delete it, and there is nothing wrong with the article which cannot be fixed through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2011 (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.