Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dimensions of the 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 delete. Mostly due to concerns that the sourcing is not independent enough to establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of dimensions of the Discworld[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overly in-depth, plot-only, non-notable fiction article. TTN (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The background of Discworld is discussed and detailed in a variety of books including the following. The topic is therefore notable and the rest is matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per policies including WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discworld and the Disciplines
The Science Of Discworld – a series of books in multiple editions
The Discworld Atlas
The Intertextuality of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld
The Folklore of Discworld
The Turtle Moves!: Discworld's Story
Turtle Recall: The Discworld Companion
Secrets of The Wee Free Men and Discworld

Comment I haven't looked at the others in depth, but I want to point out that "The Science of Discworld", "The Discworld Atlas", "The Folklore of Discworld", and "Turtle Recall: The Discworld Companion" are all official discworld books, written by Terry Pratchett himself. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Science of Discworld series seems to be written by a variety of authors including respectable scientists such as Ian Stewart. It appears that Pratchett's name is put on these works in large latters as a form of promotion – a publishing practise known as sharecropping or ghost-writing in which famous names are used to sell works written by others. Anyway, the works are best-selling and have been published in multiple editions and Pratchett has been dead for years now. The topic is clearly notable and attempts to wikilawyer this away are not credible. Andrew D. (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty seconds worth of research at our own article on The Science of Discworld shows that yes, it was written by Pratchett himself, as the books are a combination of fiction written by him in addition to the included writings by the other authors. And I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with the fact that he's been dead for years - all four of those books were written before he died. You are going to need to provide some evidence about your claim that these were just "ghost written" by him or they slapped his name on for marketing purposes if you want anyone to take them seriously as reliable sources, as all evidence points to them not being independent in the slightest. Rorshacma (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our article confirms that that that set of works involved multiple authors besides Pratchett. It also confirms that the series sold exceptionally well and so it is clear that the scientific background of Discworld has been noticed and is notable. And this is one of several entries above which include a variety of unauthorised works too. This is ample evidence that deletion would be inappropriate and so my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But this article isn't about the "scientific background" of the series. It is a list of several of the entirely fictional dimensions that make up the setting. Even if you were somehow able to convince people that official Discworld books are somehow independent sources, that really doesn't mean much when the "scientific" portions of these books don't actually discuss these fictional dimensions. Rorshacma (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, seriously, there are limits to inclusionism. I've read all of the SoD books. They are co-written by Terry, he wrote about half of what's inside them (every second chapter). This is just embarrassing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy pile of useless junk by someone who can't simply admit he doesn't care an ounce about any of the topics on which he comments. TTN (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another bit of fancruft, with no real world notability. And that's coming from someone who's read every book by Pratchett.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely in-universe plot summaries, with no indication of any sort of notability for the grouping. I already went over above why four of the proposed sources are ineligible for providing any kind of notability, as they are not independent of the series itself. Having taken a look at the other four, I can now say there isn't enough there to pass WP:LISTN. "Discworld and Disciplines" and "The Intertextuality of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld" are certainly scholarly sources - the problem is they do not really discuss these dimensions at all. The latter, in fact, is just a text describing the difficulties in translating the series in other languages, and does not mention a single one of these listed dimensions. That leaves "The Turtle Moves!: Discworld's Story" and "Secrets of The Wee Free Men and Discworld", which do talk about them somewhat, but only in the context of in-universe plot summary. There is nothing in them that denotes notability for this grouping. Rorshacma (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:ALLPLOT article with no encyclopedic basis, Wikia level fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- nothing but crufty, in-universe plot summary. I agree with Zxcvbnm that this more resembles a Wikia article than anything encyclopedic. I'm a fan of Discworld but this is completely untenable. Reyk _YO! 08:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the list of dimensions does not appear encyclopedic, and most of them are not notable on their own, I would think that L-space might be notable on its own ([1], [2]). Seems like this single dimension has quite a few cultural references. Any librarian who would like to rescue that part? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The L-Space section is currently unsourced, and seems to have some WP:OR problems. I guess it could be covered with one or two paragraphs in Discworld (world), but it's not mentioned there a single time. I'd be reluctant to recommend a merger at this time, but I wouldn't fight it either. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has gone to a level of madness. Rorshacma has described the issues better than I can, so I will just second him. I have read most of the Disc world books, I watched the film or whatever it is "Hogfather" last night. This is beyond the event horizon for totally trivial article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.