Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms) (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. This is not an endorsement of the present state of the article, which is basically an extended plot summary. I recommend folks to trim the article down in accordance with WP:WAF, but that recommendation is not a part of this close. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fictional character does not have the sort of third-party reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG. What references there are are not independent from the creator(s), are superficial or from unreliable sources. Additionally, the article is mostly an in-universe biography, in violation of WP:WAF, and what can be written about the character out-of-universe seems limited to listing the works in which he appears. Compare also the previous AfD of 9 years ago, in which the article was deleted even under the lax inclusion standards Wikipedia had at the time.  Sandstein  07:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit: There's a possible merge target, Companions of the Hall, but I advise against merging as that article, also apparently recreated, has similar defects and I'm also nominating it for deletion.  Sandstein   07:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that Companions of the Hall was only ever deleted by WP:PROD, never AfD, where it was kept resoundingly in 2007. Jclemens (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's try a different set of find sources... Jclemens (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This fictional character shows up in multiple RS contexts, including online game reviews, , board game reviews , , as well as an in-depth review that covers this character's story arc specifically ; interviews with the author , as well as interviews with the "World Building Lead" for Wizards, Chris Perkins , and is apparently mentioned in one RS book that's not covered in preview , as well as an RPG-focused dissertation .  This character was apparently voiced by David Duchovny in an audiobook , as well.  While many of these are single-word mentions, the otherwise-trivial-seeming mention of a character name in a product review indicates that the reviewer expects his or her audience to be familiar with the character. Jclemens (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To specifically address the nomination statement, WP:WAF is a style guideline, not an inclusion guideline. If a style guideline is not adhered to, then the obvious implication is that the problem in question can be fixed through regular editing.  A nine-year-old AfD discussion is an interesting piece of history, but completely superseded by the more recent RS'ing that I've highlighted above. Jclemens (talk) 09:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a plot summary, which is basically the point of WP:WAF. As Jclemens rightfully points out, the majority of his sources are singular mentions in the context of plot, so they're useless. The one PDF that goes into an in-depth comparison of Wulfgar and another character's in-game statistics maybe could have a use somewhere. The sources in the article do not actually cite anything relevant, so they're all fluff designed to give the illusion of notability. As in the other AfD, I would expect this character to be able to establish notability, but that alone is no reason to think it should be kept. There needs to be actual proof of that. TTN (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll note that just like Sandstein, by citing WP:WAF, you are tacitly admitting that, given appropriate stylistic cleanup, there's enough here with which to write an article. Reliable sources aren't "designed to give the illusion of notability", they exist out in the real world and are quoted by editors in AfD discussions when 1) the article didn't already include them, and 2) the nominator didn't find them in a hypothetical WP:BEFORE search. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll see that the primary thing I quoted was NOTPLOT. WAF is a means of making sure NOT is followed, so it is not just a stylistic guideline. All fictional topics are fundamentally all plot and only by meeting the standards of WAF can they gain the real world info needed in order to meet the policy. When the sources you bring up are trivial mentions, they are definitely meant to act as if the topic is actually notable. This is a common trend in these kind of AfDs where someone drops a load of links as a means of saying that the topic is notable, but they are never actually added to the article because they are utterly useless in the context of the article no matter how good the source. The same goes for many of the sources already in the article. They cite primary details and basic details, but they don't actually have any real content related to the character. TTN (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be easy to admire your tenacity and consistency, TTN, if you weren't simply so completely wrong about the notability of fictional elements. The reason people like me don't spend more time improving the encyclopedic coverage of fictional elements is that we have to constantly spend time protecting it from people like you who make well-meaning but misguided efforts to intentionally damage the encyclopedia's fictional elements coverage using its own processes. Jclemens (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, notability is how Wikipedia currently defines notability as per its guidelines and policies. There is no guideline, policy, or user consensus that suggests fictional elements are some kind of protected class of article that gets to skip all that. The quality of all sources is to be non-trivial coverage, but the grand majority of the sources you provide in pretty much all these AfDs are just that. Critical commentary is the discussion of the character or plot element in some way. You provide mostly trivial mentions and straight plot regurgitation that have no bearing on notability, while the occasional decent source is buried somewhere in there. This is just one of the unfortunate things of AfDs where one person says it's notable, everyone piles on to that without actually looking at the sources, the article is never improved, and then merged/redirected/deleted years later.


 * Keep per Jclemens, and as to me the "Telegram & Gazette" source added by Paul Erik and the Chicago Sun-Times source added by Torchiest are clear indicators of notability, regardless of the current state of the article. If consensus winds up disagreeing with me, a merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters would make more sense than outright deletion. BOZ (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per the comments from Jclemens, and Necrothesp. I believe the sources point support the subject's notability. Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wulfgar has been the subject of various reviews and interviews as pointed out by Jclemens. That its been mentioned this many times, in independent third party sources is more than enough to show that Wulfgar is not only notable within Forgotton Realms but is notable unto itself. This appears to be just a case where coverage in reliable sources wasn't lacking, only that the page itself didn't have any reliable sources. Sometimes that can be easily fixed through regular editing. I am not convinced by any arguments to delete this article. —Mythdon 14:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * While it obviously won't change the outcome of the Afd, it is extremely disingenuous to say that the character has coverage in sources. Only one of those sources goes into any detail about the character, while all the rest are just brief mentions under the context of the character's status as a main character in Drizzt series. Those minor mentions are mostly interchangeable with any of the five main characters and provide literally no context where they could be added to the article. TTN (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * While singular mentions by themselves aren't great for providing context to the character unto themselves, sources don't always have to, as a whole, cover the subject of the article to establish notability. And there are already in depth sources which do cover the character specifically. Its as much the number of different sources and the extent to which this character is covered, although on varying spectrums, which demonstrates it has been talked about in the real world in third party sources completely independent of the subject. And while the singular mentions are interchangeable with the other main characters which are covered, that still shows Wulfgar has been the subject of independent sources. Fictional subjects are very different when it comes to sourcing, since these are not science, politics, current events or law, etc, you have to work with what you have. It has do with how you use these sources. Even if it just means making a mention in the article about how the character has been subject to reviews and whatnot, that's enough for establishing notability that doesn't involve writing an article that consists entirely of plot summary. —Mythdon 08:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please show which sources actually cover the character. Other than the one I pointed out up above, there is not one good source that I've seen inside this AfD or inside the current state of the article. The standard for all sources is "non-trivial." Singular name-drops are absolutely trivial. There is no lessening of standards because fictional topics lack sources. It just means they are not notable. TTN (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

... and here's one more source, a where the character is mentioned as a central element from a 2001 bestseller entry for one of the novels. I can't see the fulltext of this, however--does anyone have Highbeam login and able to provide it in context? Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect instead because, yes, although there are may be sources about this, and that could be enough to accept this, there has still been noticeable consensus at AfD suggesting characters are not automatically confirmed and accepted for an article simply because it's a character; there still needs to be the substance of its own convincing article. SwisterTwister   talk  02:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a rather curious argument. Of course characters aren't automagically notable--that's why there's an AfD and a lot of people opining keep pretty much demonstrate a consensus to, in fact, keep. You admit there are sources, but then seem to walk back that admission. Merging is obviously within the realm of normal editing options, and AfD doesn't foreclose that, so I'm a bit perplexed as to why you chimed in with it here, given your statement on sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per BOZ and Jclemens, above.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2016 (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.