Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unaussprechlichen Kulten


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Unaussprechlichen Kulten

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

What makes this fictional book notable? I can't find any in-depth discussion of it that is not WP:PLOT. At best I think we can redirect this to Books in the Cthulhu Mythos, since there is really no content to merge outside a sentence about the origins of the title (and the Book of Eibon seems to a primary source too...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Discovering H. P. Lovecraft says that it's "Howard's greatest addition to the Mythos". The nomination is proposing merger not deletion and so is more time-wasting contrary to WP:BEFORE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC).
 * Redirect to Books in the Cthulhu Mythos, disregarding the rambling and inaccurate comment made above, this fails GNG. Per nom, the sources that are not in-universe are passing mentions, and a literal dictionary entry unrelated to the topic. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Books in the Cthulhu Mythos, where it is already covered. There is nothing to merge, as the only inline citations are from a collection of short stories, and a literal dictionary definition.  There are plenty of trivial mentions of the book, but any actual out-of-universe discussion on it are very brief.  Even the source that Andrew mentions above only has a couple of sentences that actually discuss the book outside of an in-universe description of it.  Rorshacma (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Discussed at length in the books Encyclopedia of the Undead and Discovering H. P. Lovecraft. Numerous other books contain more than a passing mention.  A fictional element that not only appears in numerous Lovecraft stories, but has been picked up by multiple authors is notable.  SpinningSpark 23:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:PLOT summary is not a "discussion at length". The second source contains only the sentence cited by Andrew above, and then launches into a plot summary. The first source gives us a sentence about involvement of two other people in this creation, one who might have suggested it to Lovercraft in a letter, and another who might have translated the title. Hardly an in-depth discussion (the entire paragraph about this book is five sentences; half of which is PLOT; as I said, there is not enough content anywhere about this book to even de-stub it, unless we found plot, and even that is rather short). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a grotesque misrepresentation of what is in the sources. Discovering H.P. Lovecraft has much more that the sentence quoted by Andrew. Yes, it does have some in-universe description, but after that, a new paragragh goes into a discussion of the title, the people involved in creating it, and its German grammar.  Five other names besides Lovecraft are involved in this, three of which have Wikipedia articles.  The next paragraph moves on to a story by Robert Bloch (not one of the five above) and an out-of-universe discussion of von Juntz, the fictional author, and a comparison between Lovecraft's, Howard's and Bloch's representation of him.  That paragraph spills over on to the next page which gbooks won't show, but it clearly continues as an out-of-universe discussion of the same topic.
 * Encyclopedia of the Undead has more than you claim for almost exactly the same reasons; after a brief in-universe description, it returns to an out-of-universe discussion. Your claim that it is only five sentences is demonstrably and countably wrong.  True, there are only five full stops, but a sixth sentence spills over, just like the first source, on to a page that gbooks won't serve.  So clearly both books have more information that we haven't yet read.  I also find your repeated use of "might" to denigrate the sources distateful.  There is no doubt that Lovecraft meant the book to be synonymous with Howard's Nameless Cults.  The source does not doubt this, it only questions whether it is an entirely fictional invention of Howard, or if Howard based the idea on a real book. SpinningSpark 13:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about page 429 of The Encyclopedia of the Undead? That is actually viewable for me in the preview when I click on your link.  The remainder of the text of it reads as "...to be desired (the name literally means Unpronounceable Cults.  Lovecraft, however, liked the idea and gave it at least three editions - Dusseldorf (1839), Bridewell, and a heavily expurgated version published by the Golden Goblin Press in 1909".  So, it just finishes the sentence on its name, and then has one additional sentence on its fictional history.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur, I don't see in-depth discussion here, half-focused on plot, 2-3 sentences we can rescue are not in-depth. This article is destined to be an eternak stub (outside a fancruft plot summary); all we can really say is that this book was created by Howard, then reused by Lovercarft, and that they played a bit with German grammar or such. That's a sentence, maybe two, of non-plot content if we are generous. How can anyone think this deserves a separate article is beyond me (per One sentence does not an article make). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per discussion and Spinningspark. The topic is notable within several overall Wikipedia collections, including Robert E. Howard and the Cthulhu Mythos. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In-universe notability is not a valid criterion for Wikipedia, per WP:NFICTION. We require evidence that the work has been subject to in-depth treatment outside primary plot sources. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC).
 * Redirect to  The provided sources are not in-depth analyses of this topic. Instead, most of them are either primary sources or in-universe descriptions. Even the Lovecraft Annual has nothing useful. Honestly, for the purposes of this discussion, it does not matter if those two pages have any usable content. Significant coverage in one source is not enough to demonstrate notability. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 00:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Sourcing is sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect, in universe sources without independent commentary do not count towards notability, also per Susmuffin. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 03:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sources currently in the article provide real-world, non-plot-related information. — Toughpigs (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Suprisingly well done article that doesn't just recapitulate Books in the Cthulhu Mythos. If not kept it should be condensed and merged rather than a straight redirect. Artw (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to  as per prior rationale. GizzyCatBella  🍁  04:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.