Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowled Wizards

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 all. Despite the bluster, there's no policy-based reason presented to preserve the poorly-sourced content. ansh 666 20:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cowled Wizards[edit]

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

Since the page has been redirected and reversed before, I am nominating it for deletion. It is non-notable fictioncruft that fails WP:GNG.

I am also nominating the following related fictional organizations because they are similarly crufty and non-notable:

_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 12:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)*[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Forgotten Realms characters. BOZ (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I am surprised that an administrator to Wikipedia would make such lackluster deletion arguments. Simply voting "keep" without any other arguments is more like something a new user would do than a veteran editor. If there is evidence that merits a keep or even a merge, then please present it. However, the list of characters is already bursting at the seams with unencyclopedic information, and it is a list of characters, not organizations. I am of the opinion that any list of organizations simply wouldn't satisfy WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references are another wiki page and a dead link. Nothing supports notability. --Rpclod (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of Forgotten Realms organizations. Merge and redirect others to that. Obvious solution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A bunch of non notable cruft merged into a list would still be non notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - And you could say that for every single other article detailing fictional elements, of which we have many thousands (e.g. an article on every single superhero or supervillain who has ever appeared in a comic). The simple fact is that we keep stuff like this and there is massive precedent for doing so (so no, WP:OSE doesn't apply here, before you try teaching me to suck eggs). No, we probably don't need a separate article on every one, but as a list it's no problem. Remember, this is one of the most popular settings for one of the world's best-known games; it is as notable as "in-universe" articles about superheroes, computer games, Star Trek, Star Wars or Middle-Earth. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've had a number of far more notable fictional element articles removed for being not notable. Just because there is little oversight in that section of the encyclopedia doesn't make them notable. This is indeed an example of WP:OSE, not sure why you think it isn't._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it's an example of clear precedent, which is an entirely different thing. You may think the articles you've had removed are "far more notable"; others may disagree. And as I said, I don't think each separate organisation should have a separate article, but I see no problem with merging them into a list. I see absolutely no value to Wikipedia in deleting information on a topic that many have an interest in. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; do not merge. Only in-universe, primary-sourced fancruft, violates WP:NOTPLOT, fails WP:GNG for lack of third-party coverage. Merging crap together does not make it any less crap. Sandstein 08:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure which part of WP:NOTPLOT you think covers this. Not sure why you think there's no third-party coverage (the Forgotten Realms have been written about endlessly by many, many authors on many, many platforms). Not sure why you think fictional elements are crap (clearly you think a large part of Wikipedia should be deleted if you do; but Wikipedia is written for everyone, with a vast range of interests). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As per Necrothesp, merge into List of Forgotten Realms organizations. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- all of these articles are poorly sourced fancruft. For a merge to be feasible, there'd have to be some content worth preserving and I'm not seeing any. Reyk _YO! 05:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Per User:Sandstein's very accurate rationale. Could find no notability in any of the titles especially with those that have zero, one, or two "related" or COI sources. I see a !votes to redirect to List of Forgotten Realms characters, List of Forgotten Realms organizations and some attempted WIKILAWYERING. Also as an addition to Sandstein's comments, mixing two piles of crap together does only makes a bigger pile of crap. For the record: I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in either 1974 or 1975 with my brother, stopped, and then bought in big time to AD&D 2nd Edition including hard-cover books, dice chest, several bags and cups, and several special dice sets in about 1978, so please do not even consider that I have something against role-playing games. I sure wish I had this stuff now. Notability to individual parts or sections of a game still must adhere to policies and guidelines. One primary source (the second reference is just to Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn) does not pass any form of notability and certainly does look like "fan" or "list" "cruff". Suggestions to merge to the woefully under sourced list-class article List of Forgotten Realms characters is unbelievable. That "article", masked under a list-class (it is not list-class), shows 177 kB (30973 words) "readable prose". It is suggested articles 60 kb or over be split and 100kb "Almost certainly should be divided". I am thinking 177kb of readable prose might qualify to take out "almost". In other words this is far too big to merge to and already tagged in-universe style since 2015. List of Forgotten Realms organizations has zero sourcing so merging here would most certainly be the "double stacked non-notability crap". Since none of those articles can ever apparently be "fixed" why would we want to merge to either? I looked at this thinking "why the hell would we not want this on Wikipdia". To agree to keep or merge I would have to try to find justification that it improves Wikipedia enough to ignore all the rules. Arguments that "Many thousands" of other articles exists like this, or wanting inclusion because this other stuff is notable, is not a real good wikilawyer stance at an AFD. Wikipedia might be under attack by editors that may not actually care about the encyclopedia but their own agenda or at least their own agenda at all costs. Creating articles without WP:notability, reliable sourcing, and fully against "what Wikipedia is not", --- and last-but-not-least articles written from an in-universe perspective, may have simply existed by silence far too long and may be possible attemps (meant or not) at changing the "rules" by proxy. We have these in-universe real life looking "biographies" that all need to be deleted or (fictional character) added to them all. This non-notable un-and under-sourced "crap" causes Wikipedia to lower any standards and does not add anything to the encyclopedia. If it can't be properly sourced it belongs somewhere else in the universe. Otr500 (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added observation: If "so many people" have interests in this (outside of Wikipedia fans) then it would be not need to be "clear precedent setting" attempts to "change the rules" but would be covered by sourcing. Come on! When there is a lack of sources we can't have neutrality (one of the five pillars) because original research and synthesis "will", by accident or not, find its way into articles. The point of notability is that it has attracted enough attention as to be notable per reliable sources according to policies and guidelines that includes Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). We do not need an added Wikipedia:Notability (fictional characters) but need to remember that "consensus by silence" ends when the silence is broken. Local or project consensus has been shown time and again not to take precedence over the more broad community consensus. Otr500 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Under attack" - how dramatic! Stacking as many policy pages as possible into an overblown argument does not necessarily make a point more valid. 76.231.73.99 (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2018 (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.