Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talamasca

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. Consensus was keep (non-admin closure) `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 01:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talamasca[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)

Seems like a minor plot element, failing WP:GNG (SIGCOV). I can't even suggest a reasonable WP:ATD to redirect this to. The article is a pure plot summary, and its only redeeming quality is that it's referenced, but mentions in passing don't suffice to show notability. PS. Was prodded by User:Avilich , prod was removed by User:Spinningspark with "has entries in horror encyclopaedias". But the entry in The Vampire Book: The Encyclopedia of the Undead, despite being two pages long, seems to be a pure plot summary, and that fails WP:NOTPLOT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom statement is defective in that RS'es cannot fail WP:NOTPLOT as it only applies to how Wikipedia writes about fictional topics, not how our sources do. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could the brief contents of the article be merged into another? Hellbus (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hellbus Possibly, but what we have is a tiny amount of plot summary from several books that effectively amounts to "this fictional organization appears in book A, B, C". Is this even worth merging? The organization is presumably mentioned in the plot summaries of those books anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Hellbus that discussion of plot in reliable sources is not the same as a Wikipedia editor's plot summary of the source work. The former adds to notability, the latter does not. The former tells us which plot elements reliable sources believe are significant. If that was all we had, that would still justify inclusion in Wikipedia (in some form), but when I deprodded the article I had much more to say on this than the nom's quote of my short edit summary would lead one to believe. I named a number of sources from which out-of-universe discussion can be extracted. You have to look for it, but it is there. Here are two quotes;

Together with Maharet's tapestry and the matrilineal family tree, the Talamasca provides a lineage, a coherent mythology,...
— Linda Badley, Writing Horror and the Body

In one sense or another, there are a number of anthropologists in the Mayfair trilogy. I wish to concentrate briefly , however, on the Talamasca, Ashlar, and Rowan Mayfair. These three provide sufficient examples to establish Rice's anthropological sensibility.
— Gary G. Roberts, The Gothic World of Anne Rice

SpinningSpark 13:49, 7 January 2023 (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.