Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triat (World of Darkness)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Shereth 03:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Triat (World of Darkness)[edit]
- Triat (World of Darkness) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable fictional gods used in a role-playing game. No independent sources seem to be turned up by a search on "triat world darkness" on Google or Google News (which, of course) doesn't cover everything. This is a non-notable part of a significantly notable game (which I'm *not* disputing). If there are any significant independent sources located I will glady withdraw my nomination. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 13:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Werewolf: The Apocalypse- While I agree with the nom that this certainly does not have enough real-world notability on its own, it did play a major part in the plot and game mechanics. It definitly needs re-written from an out of universe perspective however. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wouldn't be opposed to such a merger. Anyone who knows the importance of these fictional elements to the game is welcome to do such a merge. It should be noted that Werewolf: The Apocalypse is already bloated with lots of in-universe writing, and this article should be massively trimmed being doing any sort of merge there. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per years of precedent regarding all things fannish. The Triat exists in Werewolf and (under different names) in Mage and is one of the major unifying points of the old World of Darkness universe. Considering WoD is one of the most popular gaming franchises in existence, and considering we have every damn Pokemon ever organized into several Pokedexen, I think this is a definite keep. Haikupoet (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh, I'm not arguing that the WoD isn't notable, I'm arguing that this part of it isn't, or at the very least the article as written does absolutely nothing to demonstrate this notability. As I stated above, my Google searches (which don't hit everything of course) didn't seem to turn up any independent resources. I fully expected this argument to be made, i.e. something like "WoD games are notable, hence every small part of it is notable", but I'm waiting for the evidence that I was unable to locate. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are gravely misreading my point. It is not that it is notable because it's part of WoD, it's notable because it's one of the most significant plot elements underlying both Mage and Werewolf. Most of the cultures in the three biggest games have a three-way oppositional structure that relates directly to the Triat; I'm not overly familiar with Werewolf apart from the basics, but Pentex embodies the Wyrm while the Garou embody the Wild. In Mage, the Traditions represent the Wild, the Technocracy represents the Weaver, and the Nephandi represent the Wyrm. One could argue that a similar pattern exists in Vampire, though it's a little unclear as to whether the Sabbat or the Antediluvians represent the Wyrm, as the Vampire mythos predates the fully-developed Triat; however, the three-way oppositional structure still obtains. Haikupoet (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't invalidate my point. If it's notable (in th Wikipedia sense of the word) there should be other sources to back this up. In the current state of the article, there are no such sources and I was unable to locate any in my online searches. If it's "one of the unifying plot points" and is notable because of this (again in the WP sense of the word), there should be something other than your assurance (i.e. references that are independent of White Wolf) that can tell me this. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are gravely misreading my point. It is not that it is notable because it's part of WoD, it's notable because it's one of the most significant plot elements underlying both Mage and Werewolf. Most of the cultures in the three biggest games have a three-way oppositional structure that relates directly to the Triat; I'm not overly familiar with Werewolf apart from the basics, but Pentex embodies the Wyrm while the Garou embody the Wild. In Mage, the Traditions represent the Wild, the Technocracy represents the Weaver, and the Nephandi represent the Wyrm. One could argue that a similar pattern exists in Vampire, though it's a little unclear as to whether the Sabbat or the Antediluvians represent the Wyrm, as the Vampire mythos predates the fully-developed Triat; however, the three-way oppositional structure still obtains. Haikupoet (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because the alternative would be to merge contents into several articles that are already quite long, including at least Werewolf: The Apocalypse and Mage: The Ascension. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are quite long because they're already full on lots of in-universe material that should likely be trimmed down. What in this article, besides the first sentence, is non in-universe material that puts this into context? --Craw-daddy | T | 10:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is no specific requirement for the amount of context, as long as there is enough to show that it is a game character, and not a deity or whatever in some actual real world mythology. If the game is very notable, all major plot elements are notable also. We have a policy for giving full coverage of appropriate material when we cover something. DGG (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no claim of notability. Neither really any need to merge, as nothing in the article is significant --T-rex 19:29, 12 June 2008 (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.