Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underdark (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 keep. Seems like a pretty clear keep. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Underdark
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This currently doesn't establish notability. There is just one good source, but that alone is not enough. Sort of back and forth on this. For one, it is quite iconic, but simply being iconic doesn't necessarily mean sources exist. It is a common setting so finding proper sources seems like it would be quite annoying even with narrowing down search terms. Either way, you'll be seeing dozens and dozens of single time mentions that will provide no real context. If someone wants to take the time to work on it, I certainly don't mind withdrawing immediately. TTN (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. As the nominator notes, there are independent sources on this article, although I am not so quick to discount the ones presented so far or to doubt that there are plenty more out there. When this article was first nominated for AFD back in 2008, it was closed as a snow keep, and at that time it had none of these sources at all. I don't see why meeting WP:GNG should be in doubt on this topic, and AFD is not cleanup. BOZ (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is one independent source that deals with real world information. There is not one other source in the article that details anything of that nature. It might not be impossible to source it, but someone has to prove that they do exist. The previous AfD also included the module as part of the article at that point, but that has since been split out. Sources are needed for the fictional location, or if someone wants to merge it to the module, which I didn't really realize existed as of nominating it. If someone does want to merge it, I will also withdraw in that case. TTN (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:AFD is not cleanup. Clearly notable, as it is a major setting that is featured in more than a hundred novels, sourcebooks, comics, boardgames, card games, video games, and other media. —Lowellian (reply) 21:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not being used for cleanup, other than my idea of maybe merging it to the module it after realizing that it exists after the fact. Though deleting and redirecting wouldn't really hurt anything either. There is one source that provides any real world information, and the other two or three third party sources are not used for a real world context. They could be removed without losing any content, so they cannot be counted towards notability, Just because I think that there may be potential doesn't mean it should be assumed to exist just because this may be objectively iconic. That's a pretty common trend, where something is kept and never improved. And that's not because nobody has bothered to work on them, but because it turns out the topic was not actually notable in the first place. I certainly have no qualms if someone wants to prove me wrong, but please don't pretend sources exist without even providing any. TTN (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above Power~enwiki (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per all of the above, particularly the clean-up angle. Sources exist. Just because sussing them out may take additional effort, that doesn't mean the article should be held hostage at AFD. Here's one I found after only a minute on io9/Gizmodo. It gets into a decent amount of detail on various aspects of the inhabitants and conditions there. Here is an interview with the producer of a module centered around the Underdark. It's almost certain other high quality sources can be found. —Torchiest talkedits 02:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that I really have any hope of swaying this AfD at this point, but neither of those would provide any of the needed substance to the article. They would verify that the Underdark does in fact appear in those settings, but neither of those provide actual real world information that deal directly with the topic. You'd have to something like "'generic article' says 'generic by the book statement that provides no particular substance' about the Underdark." That would just be putting improper weight on those sources. You would want to find more articles describing the iconic status of the Underdark, which I'm really not sure exist in enough abundance, or plenty of creative input from the original creators and probably any commentary Salvatore has had on the settting. TTN (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The io9 is a conversation between a journalist and a game designer about the histories of various races living in the Underdark, and the process of adding new content to the setting for the new campaign. I think it's pretty detailed and strongly helps to establish notability. The second one is more passing, true, but again, this was based on a just a couple minutes of effort. More sources can be found. —Torchiest talkedits 04:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are plenty of sources with the topic in the title, but that does not mean that they will actually provide any substance to the article. That mentions nothing specific about the Underdark as a whole, so none of that would be included in this article. Anything pertaining to the development of the races belongs in the articles of those races. It mentions really absolutely nothing about the topic in general that could be really even used in this. The only thing would be a note in a development history section that the campaign took place in this setting, which has nothing to do with notability. Please at least find one source that could actually be used. I'm not demanding instant improvement to the article, but I just hate all these conversations where people are claiming there are sources and cannot actually produce a single source that would help the article. TTN (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Meets GNG, as has been described above. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Soft delete, merge and redirect to Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings. Well, most of the sources are crap, I count only one good source: . Everything else are mentions in passing or primary sources. I couldn't find anything else, through I comment User:Torchiest for digging out, which is decent, but has the problem of being part WP:INTERVIEW, were the creators describe their world. I am sorry but I have to concur with the nom that there is not enough sources to establish notability for a stand-alone topic on this. It doesn't matter if there are dozens of games set in Underdark, if there is no analysis of its importance, cultural impact, etc. And please keep in mind that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid argument: either find them or they don't exist. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I found another source specifically profiling the Underdark on Wired. —Torchiest talkedits 15:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Another source, at Polygon, which says, "one of D&D’s most well-known realms, the shadowy netherworld known as the Underdark". Seems to strongly support notability with that line. —Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 15:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Another source at The Escapist. I understand this one is covering a booklet related to the setting, but it does give some additional coverage to the article topic itself. Lines like "If you're a fan of classic Dungeons & Dragons games, you probably have some fond memories of the Underdark." seem to presume notability. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 16:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f  e  minist  01:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources have been found; also, "analysis of importance and cultural impact" are not required for Notability; the criterion is that the subject be addressed directly and in detail, in independent secondary sources. This criterion is clearly met. Newimpartial (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep sources are enough for the GNG. And frankly, as gaming slang goes, this one is pretty big.  Hobit (talk) 02:59, 1 July 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.