Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witches (Discworld)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Whether it's kept or organized into separate topics, a consensus isn't going to emerge to delete this. Sourcing has been identified wit which to solve the issues. Star  Mississippi  01:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Witches (Discworld)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fictional grouping of characters; some of which may have stand-alone notability and have their own articles (Granny Weatherwax, Nanny Ogg, Tiffany Aching), others could be merged to List of Discworld characters if they don't have an entry there already. The article has no analysis/reception or anything indicating this group has stand-alone notability and needs to have a separate article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy,  and United Kingdom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  14:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, article needs thorough cleanup, not deletion. Both the characters and the topic of witches and witchcraft are crucial to the Discworld series, and a number of withches like Magrat can be briefly described here (the current article has way too much in-universe info though), next to the three main ones which have their own articles. But the general concepts of witches and witchcraft in the Discworld series is what should be the core of this article, based on secondary sources like this one (e.g. the 14-page chapter "Be a Witch, be a Woman"). Witchcraft in Discworld novels is the central theme of multiple essats in "Philosophy and Terry Pratchett". This deals mostly with Tiffany Aching but has also enough to say about the other witches and witchcraft in Pratchett's works in general. This 14-page article is often referenced in other works about the topic as well. Fram (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Those look like solid sources, but again, the current article needs TNT-ing - although I concur this can be achieved without hard deletion, just shortening the fancruft by ~90% or so. Then we can add the sources you found, or if nobody does it, at least replace notability with sources exist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Fram, who looked up all the nice sources so I didn't have to. Ping me if more are needed. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens Any chance you could add those sources to the article and/or remove some fancruft? I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination if the article improves. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why, do you not have time? Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, as above. Joe  (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:TNT. Potentially notable topic, but article is unusable in its entirety and needs to be rewritten (possibly under Witchcraft in the Discworld series). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:01, 7 June 2023
 * Please elaborate how WP:TNT applies to notable topics. (Hint: it does not) Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It states that "With articles, this is the TNT tipping point argument: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article." That is precisely how it applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Useless, eh? You assert that NO current or past content of this article (on a topic you admit is worth having an article) is of any value whatsoever? That's manifestly unsupportable, as the content includes references to the primary sources themselves which would appear in any GA-level article on the topic. Just because it's not cited or organized the way you or I want does not mean such a pejorative applies. Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep As Fram has suggested the article has WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues. Bruxton (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable topic. The plot summary is simply too long and the analysis almost absent. But both can be remedied through normal editing, now that secondary sources have been identified. Looking at the TNT tipping point argument that was just cited: Is there anything in the current article which would be kept in a "good" version of this article? Sure, there would: The intro (which contains the one bit of analysis present), the works list, the "In other media" section, and of course selective parts of the plot summary. That's how WP:TNT tells us that this is not a case for deletion. Daranios (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  12:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment This title could potentially refer to three different but related topics: (1) the "sub-series" of Discworld stories containing among others Wyrd Sisters and Lords and Ladies, (2) the Discworld group of characters including Granny Weatherwax and Nanny Ogg, or (3) the general concept of witchcraft in Discworld. It's plausible that all three of those could work as stand-alone articles, but they would need to be three different articles. The article is currently, at least ostensibly, about the group of characters, i.e. (2). TompaDompa (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that this COULD work out as three articles, but I do disagree that it necessarily be organized that way. Done well, one article could cover all three subtopics as you've identified them. Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you do that, one of them still has to be the topic of the article in which context the other two are presented. Methinks the overall concept of witchcraft in Discworld (3) would be the best choice for that, and the group of characters (2) the worst. TompaDompa (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2023 (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.