Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sword of Truth universe


 * 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.  kur  ykh   07:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Sword of Truth universe

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unreferenced article on entirely in-universe fictional subject. I don't believe that there is enough verifiable real-world material to justify an article at this title. Any content that could be salvaged would better belong in other articles either Sword of Truth or the articles of the individual books. According to the talk page, most of the current content was merged from previously deleted articles. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * completely disagree... real world material "sword of truth books" 1-11 + "debt of bones"(a prequel which took place in this universe)and "Law of Nines"(which make refference to this universe whilst linking it to your own universe). All info in this article is relevent, and whilst it could be split up and put in the article belonging to the particular book it was taken from it is far more useful together. one shouldn't have to keep flicking between articles to read this obviously linked information. 122.57.0.252 (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2010
 * Comment You may wish to read WP:Writing about fiction. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually I think the article might have real world content in the comparison of how the TV show Legend of the Seeker has seriously changed the construction of the universe. However, I suppose a merge to Sword of Truth would be appropriate but we would have to be careful to make sure the information focuses more on the series. Sadads (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Written in a primarily in-universe style, this is the type of thing easily characterized as fancruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this sort of thing does not belong in an encyclopedia. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete duplicates the in-universe plot sections of Sword of Truth 76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep While I agree the article needs help the concept of the fictional "universe" having it's own article is well established for large fictional / epic book series.  See Midkemia, Middle Earth, Andor (Wheel of Time), Discworld (world) and so on.  Nefariousski (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But those articles have sources establishing the notability of the fictional universe in the real world. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point but that at most warrants a prod to improve the article and provide additional sourcing. Being a best selling book series with a TV series based on your books (admittedly not the best adaptation ever) seems to meet / exceed the notability of Midkemia, Andor (Wheel of Time). Nefariousski (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There is no agreement on the need  to establish notability of the parts of a fiction in the RW. It is appropriate to split a discussion like this from the main article, as a summary and combination article for the various topics. Attacks on such articles destroy the possibility of compromise on fiction topics.    DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is consensus on the need to establish such notability. Look at the guideline at WP:MOSFICT; it states: "Wikipedia contains numerous articles on fiction-related subjects, fictional worlds, and elements from them. When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources." I understand your pragmatic approach, DGG, but I don't think it excuses a lack of established notability for this subject. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Nefariousski, DGG. Legitimate spinout article to keep main article from growing too long.  An article needing improvement is not a reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but WP:NOT is. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:V and WP:N. The article has no references to any sources at all, let alone reliable and independent sources, to support any of its content. This makes it unverifiable (possibly also WP:OR) and causes it to fail the general notability guideline.  Sandstein   06:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No secondary sources analyze the topic. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete In-universe. When there is already an article on each individual book and on the series of books I feel additional articles should require some secondary sources. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and when spin off articles are there just to describe at length the universe within the books with no secondary sources then this is becoming an issue of WP:NOT. I would consider deleting Midkemia as well even though I used it as the basis for a three year long game of D&D that I ran as a kid. Polargeo (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Just because the sources aren't on the page doesn't mean the sources don't exist.  Saying unsourced = not notable is bad logic in my book.  If someone created a page about the Queen of England but was too lazy to write it properly or source it it doesn't mean she fails WP:N.  I do see logic for holding BLP to a higher standard but this is obviously not in that category.  If being unsourced or poorly sourced is justification for deletion then prepare for one hell of a flood of entries to AFD.  Here's my Suggestion.  I just added a rescue tag.  Give it a week and see what can be done to fix the article up and re-evaluate at that point.  I personally tend to sway towards the deletionist side of the scale but with so many examples of similar long standing articles of fictional universes I find it hard to justify deletion.  Nefariousski (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Further CommentI added sources that back up the geography (links to maps etc...) and some of the historical background. There's still a lot more that needs to be done but at least the article is not in the realm of the unsourced anymore.  Nefariousski (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Still no sources independent of the subject though. Also, bare google books links are not very readable. You should probably use cite book. OrangeDog  (τ • ε) 23:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something and if I am I'd love you to direct me to policy articles or MOS articles that clear this up but where does it say that in order for an article about a fictional universe to be notable it has to have some source that shows some sort of real world analysis, comparison or academic value? While I agree that it would be wonderful to have a section in the article / source that goes over such a concept I don't think not having it is reason for consideration for deletion.  See Discworld (world), The growing consensus to for a Niven Ring article, Midkemia, Novindus, JRR Tolkien's Arda, Charn etc... all of which have no mention or reference independent of the subject.  Nefariousski (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2010 (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.