Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vecna


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Vecna

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fictional character. All of the sources in the article do not verify notability, as they are not independent of the creators of Dungeons & Dragons. A cursory search on the internet did not give any evidence of the existence of good independent sources on this topic which cover it in depth. The importance of this topic within D&D is irrelevant to notability unless it can be demonstrated that there are independent sources which provide significant coverage. Simone 08:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep there are no reported issues with this article so taking to AFD is bad faith. There are sources, ignoring those to push a point of view or agenda is also bad faith. Web Warlock (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Plus the old AFD on this was Keep. So no, this is a keep as well. Web Warlock (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Please link to the AfD. And note that consensus can change. Particularly if the old AfD was based on claims of "coverage in third party sources existing" somewhere that have not actually been produced to verify the claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep based on additions by Webwarlock. BOZ (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * see the talk page for an analysis of those sources and how they do not appear to actually address the WP:GNG requirements. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The new additions made in the last day by Webwarlock indicate a notable presence in certain aspects of popular culture as affirmed by reliable sources. Guinness323 (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * transwiki to a fansite that would love this kind of trivia. Based on the analysis of the sources added by WebWarlock on the Talk page, none of them actually provide anything that could be considered "significant coverage" by "reliable sources" about the "subject of the article" - they are mostly just trivial observations that happen to include Vecna. Perhaps a merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons would be acceptable, there is the Wired review that would provide at least one Third Party Source to that article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated: while the inclusion of more third party sources makes the introductory paragraph of this version something that could be argued to have "significant coverage by reliable third party sources", when all of the inuniverse fancruft is removed, you are pretty much left with that intro paragraph- content would still be appropriate for the suggested merge target List of Dungeons & Dragons deities and which would give THAT article at least some third party sources thus resulting in improving two article title spaces. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. Nothing qualifying for significant coverage of the topic has been provided, so it should be removed unless WP:N and WP:WAF can be met. TTN (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

When Dragon was published by TSR, there was no question that Dragon was an mouthpiece of TSR with the sole purpose of promoting TSR products. However, once WotC was tken over by Hasbro, it was no longer interested in publishing a magazine. Rather than let the magazine die, some D&D enthusiasts led by Erik Mona formed Paizo and "rented" the license to publish Dragon from WotC; Paizo then kept the profits (if any) that it made from publishing the magazine. Paizo did not receive any funds from WotC in compensation, other than fees WotC paid for advertising. While Dragon continued to be the voice of D&D, Paizo never was a publishing arm of WotC, and its editorial voice was that of the D&D enthusiast, not the game manufacturer. Editorially, Paizo publicly disagreed with the direction WotC was taking D&D -- both inside and outside the pages of Dragon. WotC eventually withdrew the license to publish rather than let its competitor continue to use it as a bully pulpit. To insist that Paizo was not an independent voice because it paid WotC for the license to publish is to ignore the often testy relationship between the two companies. Guinness323 (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect (Merge possible) to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. The article itself fails to establish the notability of the topic, per the complete absence of "significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources" required by WP:GNG. Sources have been added, but I share TRPoD's assessment of these being only trivial mentions and not significant coverage, in the AfD talk page.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources 2 & 7. The former was written by another person commenting on other authors' creations within the D&D genre. Major plot entity over 30 years. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * as of this version reference 2 is Dragon Magazine, the officially licensed publication of Wizards of the Coast for the Dungeons and Dragons Franchise. Not an independent source. reference 7 as discussed on this talk page is a blog post that may or may not be argued is acceptably reliable, but the only content is a reference that "Vecna" is an anagram of "Vance". That is not significant. And just cause a fictional being was mentioned in print 30 years ago is not one of the riders providing an exception to the requirements of WP:GNG.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with TRPoD, source 2 is not independent no matter how much you wish it could be, source 7 is trivial.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When the article referenced by Source 2 was written in 2007, Dragon was -- and had been for a number of years -- independently published by Paizo, under a license agreement with WotC. Paizo was not owned by Wizards of the Coast; quite the contrary, in 2008 when WotC revoked the license to publish Dragon and introduced a new edition of D&D that superseded the current v3.5, Paizo became a competitor by publishing its own role-playing system, Pathfinder, based on the old v3.5 system. While there is no question that Dragon was tightly tied to the D&D gaming community, its editorial staff, artists and writers were not employed by WotC. Guinness323 (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "under official license agreement" is the definition of NOT independent "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic, for example.". --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If Paizo was contractually tied to WotC, then there is no question of independence.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense - like saying that a mathematics text is not independent because it's written by a mathematician and appears in a maths journal. Most authors and publishers have a pecuniary interest in their work.  It's the fact that people pay money for it that gives it value. Warden (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comment is nonesense. WP:GNG clearly states that "independence" "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it".Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The subject here is Vecna, who is an imaginary character. Obviously no-one is affiliated with someone who doesn't exist.  The idea of independence is to exclude vanity sources like autobiographies.  The sources we have here are fine and the more canonical they are, the better. Warden (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are back to that nonsensical position? Vecna is a fictional creation covered by intellectual property rights that are owned by TRS, bought up by WoTC and were covered under the official license agreement with Piazo during their publication of Dragon. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC) )
 * You fail to see the point of "independence" as related to the WP concept of Notability, ie "attention from the world at large". Companies or products directly tied to the creator do not represent the "world at large", and cannot establish that the topic is worth mentioning on WP. Paizo, as the licenced published of an official WotC product, does not represent the world at large, only the small microcosm of the D&D copyright holders and their subcontractors. Your mention of divergence bewteen Paizo and WotC is irrelevant in that respect, besides it does not correspond to what reliable sources state about the non-renewed licence, which was because WotC wanted to switch to online. Whatever the tone they were using, they paid to benefit from WotC's official seal and were paid thanks to it, and as such were not an independently notable publication (ie they didn't acquire their name, readership and reputation on their own, without help from the D&D/WotC brand). They represented the D&D brand and didn't mention its product by choice, but because the creators licensed them to do so, no matter the tone they ended up using. And when WotC no longer wanted the publication to exist, it stopped. There is just no way that could be called independence.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Topics in the field of higher mathematics such as direct sum do not receive attention from the "world at large", only from mathematical texts written by experts who have a vested interest in the topic. The same goes for countless other narrow, specialist topics which Wikipedia routinely covers on its front page and elsewhere - obscure fungi, plants, places, people, &c.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that means that it covers pretty much everything, not just topics of general interest.  Compared to other topics, D&D and its elements, is quite accessible and familiar to millions of people who have played it or heard of it.  The specialist journals which cover D&D are those such as Dragon; White Dwarf; Dungeoneer, &c.  The fact that they specialise in the topic is a reason to be using them; not a reason to discount them.  The article now has numerous good sources of this kind so should obviously be kept. Warden (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That articles exist does not necessarily mean that they should exist. Science is not exempt from meeting the GNG, and it would be nice if you stopped bringing obviously irrelevant comparisons with badly sourced articles that seem to forget that WP is not a math textbook. Wikipedia can cover pretty much everything indeed, but it does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere on the Internet. As far as WotC-owned magazine, the fact that they are not independent from the subject or its creator, per WP:GNG, is a reason to discount them when assessing notability and whether the article should exist. There are only sources of this kind to back up the article so it should obviously not be kept.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I am pretty sure that direct sum was never engaged in an official license agreement with math; nor were the sources used in direct sum ever engaged in official license agreements with the creators of math. If you can provide that evidence, well then we have something to discuss. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Authors in the field of mathematics will sign contracts with the publishers. All professional publishing is governed by legal arrangements and it is such professionalism that we prefer in our sources.  These attempts to deny the sources for D&D topics are absurd - a double-standard which is not applied to other types of topic. Warden (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Publishers in the field of mathematics are not affiliated with math or its creator. Please stop pushing for absurd and irrelevant comparisons. WP:GNG exists and D&D is not exempt from it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Publishers and authors who specialise in mathematics are obviously affiliated with it. They will typically be affiliated to mathematical associations and will derive their income from the topic.  There's no difference. Warden (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You propose a non-consensual interpretation of "independence" as related to notability. Numerous recent AfD disprove your views since sources such as Dragon and the D&D official books themselves have been discounted. There is nothing more to be said.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The general outcome seems to be that major recurring villains in substantial fictional universes have articles about them - see Magneto; Moriarity; The Master, &c. Vecna seems similar. Warden (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just now you were saying that we should look at the precedents created by other cases. In choosing such precedents, we should obviously choose similar cases.  As WP:OSE says, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides". Warden (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have cited example of consistent consensuses reached on the application and meaning of policy, which is of course fundamental for the good working of WP. You have randomly referred to articles that have never been tested against policy and thus cannot be taken as having created "precedents".WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS specifically explains that it's not because an article merely exists that it means it doesn't violate our policies.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Those other articles have been tested by numerous reviews by multiple projects. They are clearly here to stay. Warden (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reviews are not notability tests. Only AfDs are per WP:FAILN, but I will remark that none of the article you mention withstood review as they either never passed GA or have been demoted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The connection with Jack Vance alone is enough to make the topic notable - see Four ways Jack Vance influenced Dungeons & Dragons or Advanced Readings in D&D: Jack Vance for example. Our editing policy then applies and so there is no case for deletion. Warden (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong, what makes a topic notable is the presence of significant coverage from reliable secondary independent sources, which is not the case here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have cited multiple good sources. If they need adding to the article then that's a matter of ordinary editing not deletion.  My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All of these are just short, trivial mentions, not meeting the requirement of "significant coverage". Four ways Jack Vance influenced Dungeons & Dragons is probably unreliable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Both of those pieces tell about Vecna in detail and all the sources seem to agree on the facts, which do not seem to be in dispute. They pass WP:SIGCOV easily. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, one short sentence is not "in detail", and doesn't allow to build an article that wouldn't violate WP:NOTPLOT. Four ways Jack Vance influenced Dungeons & Dragons is from a blacklisted website.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that there are numerous good sources for the topic. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Simply being named after someone notable does not confer notability.  Otherwise, Doctor What, Doctor Whom, Doctor Whooves, Doctor Why, Doctor Watt, Doctor Whozonfirst, The Professor, Inspector Spacetime, Tractor Who, and every other character on this page would each merit a separate article just about them for no other reason than being named after Doctor Who. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article you give as a counter-example is a blue-link. That demonstrates that there is no case for deletion. Warden (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The case we're making is that the topic is not fit for a separate article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a deletion discussion. If the case for deletion has collapsed, as it seems, then we're done.  Editing of the article along with all the other D&D material is ordinary editing.  AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Case for deletion has not collapsed as the article is not notable. Managing non-notable article is not clean up.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * FdF's !vote was not delete. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is acceptable per WP:MERGE, and in keeping with the nomination rationale which is fundamentally correct in its assertion of non-notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Still not hearing a case for deletion. This is Articles for Deletion not Articles for Editing or Articles for Argument. Warden (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a case for deletion as I agree with the nomination assessing the topic as non-notable, as I propose a redirect which is essentially deletion without history deletion. I only suggest merge as a compromise per WP:MERGE. Both are acceptable recommendations as listed at WP:AFDFORMAT. I can't see anything more to be said on the matter and I advise you against arguing in circles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A redirect preserves the topic as a blue link-title and tells the reader to expect something about it at the destination. It is functionally equivalent to keep the topic, not deleting it. Warden (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "A redirect is a page which has no content itself", hence functionally equivalent to deletion. Please stop arguing in circles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * FdF's !vote talks of merger and so it is apparent that he wishes Wikipedia to contain both information about the topic and its title as a blue link. The mystery is why FdF argues so furiously when he is so clearly wanting to retain the topic. Warden (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about the article. I have given my opinion that the topic doesn't deserve a stand-alone article, I see no point in further discussing this as it is very clear.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's my !vote you're badgering here. If you have nothing further to say, then please remain silent.  I'm just trying to make it clear that my !vote stands and your reams of argumentation have not changed my position which is based upon the notability demonstrated by numerous good sources. Warden (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about ? You're the one badgering Egsan Bacon's comment and my !vote here by explicitely referring to it two times in a row. You're the one who should stop arguing around in circles, before you slip again into personal attacks and get blocked for it. I understand you're frustration at meeting opposition, but you must learn to drop the stick at some point. If you don't want to be answered to, then don't comment, and certainly don't comment upon me if you can't stand me to answer you. And if you're not longer able to keep track of the discussion you're commenting in, then it's definitely time for you to stop.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article I gave as an example is not an article about a specific thing like the one up for discussion is. List of Doctor Who parodies is a very long list made up largely of many things that would never be able to support an article on their own.  The question isn't if, for example, Doctor Whooves is notable enough to be mentioned there, it's if he's notable enough for his own article.  Currently, he is not.  (Doctor Whooves is a redirect.)  If you're suggesting that Vecna's place is on a list of that sort, that would mean you're supporting a merge and you might want to note that you've changed your !vote.  If you're suggesting that the existence of a very long list of characters named after Doctor Who, characters that do not have their own articles, supports Vecna having his own article, I'm afraid I don't see how.
 * If the link being a blue link is the problem, I have some more examples for you. Shea Jones, Brielle D'Shea Larkin, and Shea Cooper were all named by their ballplayer fathers after Shea Stadium, but that does not make them notable.  (In reference to your comment "The connection with Jack Vance alone is enough to make the topic notable".)  Likewise, my friend's pet, Jeter (cat), is also not notable.  I support a Redirect/Merge, just like, for example, Benjamin Franklin Gates (character), the main character of the National Treasure franchise, or the above mentioned Doctor Whooves.  Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Added one source. As of now, sources 2, 8, 25, 27, 29 (and 16 and 18 to some degree) are independent and show a general relevance of the subject. Daranios (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Source 29 is a self-published fan wikia therefore unreliable, sources 16 and 18 are forum posts so self-published and unreliable. Besides, none of the sources provide any significant coverage on the subject.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources say e.g. that Vecna is "everybody’s favorite evil wizard..." and that Vecna's Hand made it into 4th Editions DMG as a classic D&D artifact. That does not sound trivial to me. Daranios (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * this is still a "passing mention" that doesn't exceed one sentence. The aim of significant coverage is to provide enough out of universe info to outweigh plot summary, per WP:GNG. Is that the case ? No. One or two sentences here and there do not make an article notable.
 * In my opinion, the fact that it is one sentence in itself does not make a reference a "passing mention", if this sentence says something relevant, like: This topic is important for D&D. Ratio between real-world and in-universe imformation may be improved for Vecna, but that is no reason for deletion. Daranios (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * what is your basis for the assumption that "Ratio between real-world and in-universe imformation may be improved "? the character has been around for 40 odd years and yet the only thing people find worthy of commenting on is " His name is an anagram" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Acutally, I was thinking that the plot summary part might be somewhat shortened by people who feel that it is too large for Wikipedia. But you wanted to know what's there apart from that, right? The sources say it is an important topic within D&D as the character as well as his artifacts; publication history; origin of name; use in other media both connected and unconnected to D&D. So why throw that out? By the way, one independent source was just published in 2013, so I would not exclude further developments. Daranios (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 *  When those sources from the future actually come into publication then we can use them to spin out a stand alone article for any content that may become too large to properly include in a parent article. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (That's why I mentioned it by the way, as you asked for the basis of my assumption.... My opinion stands on the sources as they are now. Daranios (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC))
 * Two things: GNG disagrees with you about what is significant coverage, and if the amount of plot summary was trimmed down to give priority to out-of-universe information as per WP:NOTPLOT, then we would just have a stub that could be easily merged anywhere. If you agree the topic was artificially made to take up a whole stand-alone article because of excessive plot summary, and if you agree this could be be trimmed, may I suggest you, for the sake of compromise, to rally to the idea of a merge that would allow us to retain as much in/out of universe info as possible, in a win-win situation ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost the same discussion already took place about Caramon Majere. The example GNG says much less than the sources here, so I think it does not apply. And the publication history alone is longer than your usual stub. I think a merge would not be a good solution. An article with a somewhat shortened plot summary (and room for later improvement) would be a good solution. Daranios (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And Caramon Majere didn't end the way you wanted. I disagree on the publication history, it appears long only because it was badly formatted to be so. Remove the subsections for each edition, remove line breaks after each sentence, create proper paragraphs and you're left with content taking up much less space. Besides, the history is only sourced to primary sources, which cannot be used as the basis for a stand-alone article. You have to find enough secondary source to outweigh any primary content, and that's not the case. If you trim the plot summary, I maintain the article is easily mergeable. Note Vecna reformatted. Not so impressive, suddently.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, do you really think the publication section of Vecna is now better? It's somewhat shorter, sure, but the splitting by edition made sense to me. Anyway, the publication section alone is still larger than 7 kB, while WP:AS suggests merging for articles roughly < 1kB. Sure, the section is based on primary sources. But it is real-world relevant content, and we have secondary sources for other parts of the article. Using solely secondary sources is not required. As with Caramon, neither of us seems to be able to convince the other of his position while interpreting WP:GNG. I am not sure how AfDs are closed, but I think it would be best if someone neutral could draw a conclusion about the article and the arguments presented before anything against the article is done. Daranios (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Each paragraph is still focused on a separate edition. I think you're misusing WP:AS, which certainly doesn't say that anything above 1kb can't be merged, we've had a lot of recent example at AfD of 10kb+ ending up merged. That was also the case for Caramon Majere, despite its size. WP:NOTPAPER is clear that size concerns can't trump inclusion policies/guidelines, and the most minute details can certainly be purged from the publication history. You're right that using solely secondary sources is not required, however it is required that they make up the majority of the article. The only secondarily-sourced content in the article is: "The name Vecna was an anagram of Jack Vance, the fantasy author whose "fire-and-forget" magic system is used in Dungeons & Dragons. [...] According to Shannon Appelcline, the adventure "touched upon the oldest locales and the most ancient myths of the D&D game" by playing the Eye and Hand of Vecna against the cambion demigod Iuz." There is certainly room for merge.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to make clearer that there are quite some more passages based on secondary sources by my recent edits. I agree that size is just one indicator. Still, I am counting approximately 6+ kB of the article based on secondary sources now (counting sourced uses "in other media") - a minority of the whole article, but not to be just dismissed. Is there really a rule/guideline that says that secondary sources have to make up the majority of an article (assuming that there are several non-trivial ones there)? Daranios (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that content in "other media" is using sources primary to the other medium and not secondary to the medium (that would be publications reporting on the mention of Vecna in multiple media). So I'd say bellow 5kb. Still, do you realize the glaring discrepancy between that and the 22/23kb of plot summary ? WP:PSTS doesn't give a ratio but says articles must be based on 2ndary scs (which, per common sense, means they must outweigh any other kind of scs). No ratio in WP:NOTPLOT but it states "discussing the reception and significance [...] in addition to a concise summary", which, again per common sense, means plot summary must at least not outweigh (and probably should be shorter than) significance. WP:WAF states "length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections", which means that in any case, plot summary cannot outweigh other sections. If plot summary for Vecna is to be reduced so that it doesn't violate these rules, the whole article would be 10/12kb, if we follow WP:AS that's mergeable. A merge will allow to keep a reasonable amount of plot, but if you insist on retaining it as a stand-alone, it will have to be trimmed down to ~10kb at some point and be merged anyway.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * General answer: 1) No matter the letter, in my opinion the spirit of WP:GNG is fulfilled. So let's keep the article. 2) In what way would Wikipedia benefit from either a merge or even a deletion of the article?
 * Specific answer: I feel we may have a long discussion about the usability and nature of the "In other media" section. To save time, I would like to postpone this discussion until the question about the article really hinges on that paragraph. Without it, secondary sources cover only 4+ kB of content. If you want to argument with WP:AS, it would give no reason to merge, even if only this content was present, as this guideline qualifies a normal article roughly between 1 kB and 50 kB. With 1500+ characters, it would also automatically not be classfied as a stub. But of course there is much more content. Also, not 22/23 kB are plot summary: The "Publication history" is based on primary sources, but is real-world content. So is "In other media" (where primary/secondary nature of sources could be discussed.)
 * A suggestion: Both sides have brought quite a large number of arguments. I expect, we can lead this discussion for some time more. But what about drawing a line now, to save time, and ask for a neutral administrator to evaluate if the majority (Keep, purely by count) is overturned by the better arguments of the minority, or not, or to tell us what should be done if the best course is inbetween? Daranios (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I disagree that you would accurately represent the "spirit" of GNG, and I actually am not very fond of this way of taking the "spirit" of a rule to make it say whatever you want... If I say (for example) "user X behaves like an asshole", and not "user X is an asshole", it could be argued I'm faithful to the spirit of WP:NPA (or not). Strip away a rule from its words and you can make it say just anything. That's why I don't think you can hide behind the excuse of the "spirit over the words", if your opinion is not explicitely supported by GNG, then it's not, period. 2) Merging would allow us to better include the few scattered sentences of external coverage in WP itself while not dooming the article the "stub label-of-shame", and it would respect WP policies. As I said before, you're misusing WP:AS, which certainly doesn't say that anything above 1kb can't be merged. Don't forget that WP:WHYN explicitly states that "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Plot summary is definition of a topic. Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ...aaand as we've probably said many times before there is a difference between the independent secondary sources used to define notability and the sources one may use to flesh out content (which may at times be primary). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * yessssss, when you have one paragraph worth of content sourced to third parties, you can "flesh out" another paragraph based on primary sources. After that you are no longer "fleshing out" the content of the independent sources you are basing your article on the primary sources which is expressly identified as inappropriate WP:WHYN. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Casliber, please read WP:PSTS more carefully, though primary sources can contribute to the overall content, their use must be limited, and the article must be based on/fleshed out by 2ndary sources only.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, bad choice of words on my part. If you would have looked at the link I provided with my formulation "spirit of WP:GNG", you would have seen that I was indeed referring directly to WP:GNG - not hiding behind anything! - specifically to the section that describes the root of WP:GNG. In my opinion, there is no problem at any of the points mentioned with Vecna: 1) We can write a whole article. The existence of the article with sources demonstrates that. 2) No non-sensical content present. 3) No original research (except possibly for the very small snippets where it is indicated). 4) No problem with balance (three independent and one dependent secondary source say the topic is relevant within D&D, so that can be seen as established).
 * As for use of merge for Wikipedia: I do not see your point. Merging would just bloat up another article without great improvement, while this article vanishes for those who are interested in such things.
 * As for WP:AS: Whatever it can do for my position, it demonstrates that size cannot be used as an argument for merge or deletion. In the same vain, the guidelines, which I have been asked to stick to, say that the content based on independent secondary sources alone, even excluding the disputed "In other media" section, would not get the "stub label-of-shame"! But again, there is of course much more to the article than only that content. Daranios (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) There's no possibility of writing a whole article with just a handful of non-plot content. See WP:WHYN "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page." Remember, we both agree that after cutting needless plot summary, the article would only amount to a stub. 4) Per WP:GNG, what matters is not (only) the number of sources, but the quality and quantity of their content. If your 3 independent sources only have passing mentions and only allow to write one sentence from each, then no the article is not notable.
 * As for the use of merge, funny that you consider this article good enough for stand-alone, but somehow such greeeat content wouldn't be so great anymore when merged elsewhere ? Makes no sense at all. Content stays the same whether merged or stand-alone, otherwise you're just arguing for the sake of it. "Bloating" is a non-issue, per WP:PAPER, size cannot trump inclusion guidelines, and a huge amount of plot summary can be trimmed here and in merge targets anyway. And if you argue that the content itself would "vanish", then you fail to understand what "merging" means. Again, there is no choice to be made here, it's either, deletion, redirection, or a merge, but there's no keeping the article in the long term, that's just not a policy-supported option.
 * WP:AS is not concerned with merging an article anyway, but with splitting. WP:STUB is not concerned with notability but with size only. WP:WHYN is what demonstrates that size, as related to notability, must be used as an argument for merge.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahm, would you be so kind to read my last entry again? You have misrepresented my statements in several points: 1) I do not at all agree that the article would be a stub, even if only the parts based on secondary sources were present (and neither I nor Wikipedia's guidelines find plot summary "needless"). On the contrary: It would be too big for all example criteria mentioned in WP:Stub! It would have more than 250 words, more than 10 sentences, more than 1500 characters. 2) I do not argue, that content vanishes in merging per se. I have said that the article would vanish. And that would, in my opinion, a loss for Wikipedia. 3) If we would keep the content without (in my opinion) undue reduction, there would be no improvement in dumping it into another page in a merge. This would not make the target page greater than having Vecna and a possible target page seperately. (Ok, maybe that last one was not formulated completely clear by me.)
 * That said, I agree we have to consider WP:GNG. I am now counting approximately 14 sentences of material based on secondary sources (again, even excluding "In other media"). That is more than "a few". It's more than a definition. It's more than "half a paragraph". So no problem there. In case you think differently, should we not now call in someone neutral to evaluate the article, this whole discussion, and the question if the significance of secondary sources is fulfilled? Daranios (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Web Warlock. Hihidufgh (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to ignore the discussion establishing the sources as not significant...Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ...which is, indeed, under discussion, not established. Daranios (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep sources meet the GNG. Iconic figure that has seen coverage because he's an iconic figure. Of Dice and Men would be one example... Hobit (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per above reasons.  Royal Mate1  01:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I express no opinion on this subject, but I want to point out that the nominator here is actually User:Claritas with a misleading signature. As part of the user's second chance negotiations, this account is subject to a voluntary restriction against participating in AfDs (let alone starting them). The discussion here confirms the community's view on Claritas' AfD restriction.  Is there any evidence that consensus has changed and Claritas now has standing to start AfDs?— S Marshall  T/C 22:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, I've gone straight to AN/I because this looks pretty clear-cut to me.— S Marshall T/C 23:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge - Subject should be discussed in detail with the campaign settings he is based around, I even remember seeing the Billy and Mandy reference with the Eye of Vecna and a few mentions of the Hand of Vecna in other places. Actually the artifacts of Vecna are more of the reason to keep the Vecna page than any other. Roguelikes like Angband and Slash'EM feature Vecna and ones like Baldur's Gate II, Planescape have easter eggs or minor nods as well. While some like Michael Bridges reviews D&D matters, he does appear to be important within the community if not for the Oerth Journal, a decent publication in the process of 80s and 90s counterculture. He is a Greyhawk artist and does various things besides reviewing Greyhawk material. He runs the Greyhawk blog and analyzed the material of Vecna in 4E from the Dragon publication. More offline sources likely to be found, but merging the several pages into one to serve a higher purpose is probably the best. Does not need to be deleted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Found another review and commentary on Vecna. Though while not a member of Wizards, Ken Hart is a contributor, so aside from the platform, this may be type of secondary source for commentary even if it was picked up by Dragon - Making the jump from unreliable fan commentary and discussion in the process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of sources sufficient to demonstrate that the GNG are met are in the article and/or have been referenced above. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2013 (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.