Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snotling

Add links
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 no consensus. This article does not meet notability criteria and thus has a serious problem. At the same time, numerous editors have expressed their opinion that this is an exceptional case where the GNG is insufficient as a test of notability and their opinions cannot be discounted here. Please note that this "no consensus" closure is not an endoresement of the status quo and interested editors should pursue a proper closure to the broader question of what the fate of this information is, whether that be through further researching and the addition of new sources, through the merging of this and similar "staple modern fantasy creatures" into a single article, or another solution. If the article's failing of current guidelines and/or policies is not remedied, there is no prejudice against a renomination in the near future. Shereth 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snotling[edit]

Snotling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of the plot of various Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 book and game plot sections. It is therefore pure duplication, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Warhammer 40k. I don't think parts of a game are notable enough in and of themselves. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Orcs and Goblins#Snotlings. They don't exist in Warhammer 40,000 any more. -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge above - The subject of the article is not exclusive to Warhammer 40K and as a race exist in other games by the same manufacturer. Merger if required should be to a more general article as the subject appears in Warhammer Fantasy, Warhammer 40K, BloodBowl, and various versions of the RPG. Goblinoid may be a good place although I note they also leave out the Bloodbowl references. Orcs & Goblins is a specific codex for Warhammer Fantasy and again has nothing to do with either the Bloodbowl appearances, the historical 40K existence, or the roleplay aspect of the race. To confuse the issue even more though, I don't think they require a standalone article either.Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - they exist or existed in numerous Games Workshop games in both the Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40K universes. If they are to be merged with anything, it should be a new Greenskin (Warhammer) article about all greenskin races in all Warhammer universes. Ausir (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - they have existed in multiple games set in both universes. Nemesis646 (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And how does this demonstrate notability (as defined by WP)? --Craw-daddy | T | 14:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. While notability is inherited, the article also passes the general notability guideline on its own. The outcomes of the other Warhammer AfDs were unfortunately marred by a deletionist sock account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No verification has taken place with this topic, no reliable sources presented, as usual it's a keep vote because....well, we just don't ever vote for deletion, regardless of a topics total lack of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have argued to and even nominated to delete over fifty articles. I typed in "snotling" on Google Books. A word that gets multiple hits is sufficient verifiable (after all, it's books, not just websites) and notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, how many of those books were published by companies other than Games Workshop, BL Publishing or other companies owned by GW? -- JediLofty UserTalk 08:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more relevant question in this case might be, how many of these given in the linked search deal with the subject of the article in question? One of them has a comment to the effect "That guy in the Games Workshop tee shirt looked like a snotling, one of the figures made by Games Workshop." How is this substantial coverage? The others deal with Jewish/Yiddish poetry (getting exactly *one* hit for the word "snotling" in a poem), and one gets a hit because apparently there's a baseball player by the name of Chris Snotling, and hence the hit is on the Beckett price guide to baseball cards. So again, how many of these deal with the subjecct of this article? --Craw-daddy | T | 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notability adequately sourced. I don't agree with all of GRCs keep !votes by a long shot, but I do agree here. DGG (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage in sources independent from the subject, per WP:N. The "keep" opinions above ignore this issue. As pointed out above, the Google Books search results are not about the fictional creatures at issue here.  Sandstein  08:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (possibly transwiki to some appropriate place). No independent references to demonstrate notability (independent of Games Workshop and/or its subsidiaries, the makers of the games that use this fictional creature). --Craw-daddy | T | 09:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there are multiple games that use Snotlings, and there's novels (set in the Warhammer universe) with them. Stijndon (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment but are there any reliable sources that talk about this? -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly transwiki to some appropriate Wikia site for this, but there are no independent references to demonstrate notability as established. JBsupreme (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term appears in Google News, Books and Scholar searches, but that is because of people named Snotling, or its use as slang for "child". There is one Google News hit which says, "The bow and crossbow are damaging enough in the hands of weaker characters like the snotling, but when utilized by specialized enemies such as assassins..." which, even though it is a NYT review of the game, is more about the weapon than the race. This one source makes no claim of notability for the race. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You would be mistaken, as there is only one reference, and it doesn't establish notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google books shows more than one reference. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which have nothing at all to do with the article under discussion. For example, how does a baseball player named Chris Snotling have any bearing on a fictional creature called a Snotling???? How does a poem that uses the word Snotling once have any bearing on the subject of this article (which is a fictional race in a fantasy game from a game puclisher??? --Craw-daddy | T | 17:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They demonstrate that the term is one that at worst we can use to construct a disambugation page covering these various usages. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage. I opposevcreating an article about every character, place, device and event in a fictional work or a game franchise when it has no substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the game or a game guide associated with the publishers of the game. Edison (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Multiple reliable sources with substantial coverage have been presented above that allow for some manner of article that does not justify redlinking it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop. The "references" (using the word loosely) in that Google books search are the very definition of "insubstantial".
  1. This one gives us "He looked like on of those Games Workshop creatures. A snotling. ... -- he looked like a snotling hedgehog with alopecia". And that's it.
  2. In this one we seem to find "A snotling peeked out from under her father's plate. Harmony watched in dread as her father cut into his strawberry ..." and "Maybe the snotling was trying to dig out from under the biscuit. If she could just squish it back down..." and nothing more.
  3. Here, here, and here we find the use of the word "snotling" exactly once in a poem (surprise, surprise, it's the same poem in three different books). So a single word in a 378 page book, or a 471 book (and another single word in a book of unknown page length). Pretty substantial, isn't it?
  4. This book also seems to have this word appear exactly once in it.
  5. Another book gives us " 'I did not hit you, you snotling' " as the sum total of its use of the word.
  6. We again find the word exactly once here and, though it's hard to tell from the online print source, it seems to be someone's name in a paper referenced in these conference proceedings.
  7. Finally, the last of the nine hits on the Google Book search is the Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide with, apparently, a baseball player by the name of Chris Snotling (I think). So no relevance to the subject of this article.
In other words, in no way does this constitute "substantial coverage" and claiming so is misleading and disingenuous. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are multiple references in published books that constitute substantial coverage of the word "snotling" in some capacity and saying they aren't is misleading and disingenuous. I am arguing that the article should not be redlinked as the word and its use is verifiable in some capacity whether it's the contents of the article or for a dramatic rewrite of the article. I see nothing to convince me that we can't use these sources to have some kind of article on "snotling" whatever that may be. It's not a word a wikipedian just made up. And even in the context used here, they are verfiable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Craw-daddy's analysis of the "significant" coverage in reliable sources. Pure game guide material with no assertion of real-world notability. If you want to transwiki it somewhere, [1] would be the appropriate target at Wikia. --Stormie (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The google books search is great evidence that the term, as used in this article, does not have substantial third-party coverage. However, deletion should be without prejudice against the creation of an article about baseball player Chris Snotling. Nandesuka (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't that article be one called Chris Snotling or are you saying Snotling should be disambiguation page or redirect? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm simply emphasizing that your google books search is excellent evidence for the non-notability of the subject of the article. Nandesuka (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, my interest is not merely in the current subject of the article, but what best to do with Snotling, i.e. can we make a disambugation page, can we merge any of this elsewhere, have the relevant wiki projects been notified, etc. Put simply, is there any decisively compelling reason why the article needs to be redlinked or are their alternatives and if so have they all been fully considered first. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into a list of W40K creatures. Not notable on its own. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not only a W40K creature. Ausir (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it looks like this storm of delete-votes is unstoppable, because there has never been a news report or book or anything on snotlings. I just wanted to add that snotlings seem to be of interest to a large group of gamers. Just look at the image results of a google search on snotlings: there's heaps of results, and only the very first one is from Games Workshop itself. This suggests that Snotlings might earn their own page, even though this goes against some of the policies if you want to interpret them in a certain way. Also, if this is deleted, please consider deleting Behir, Beholder, Displacer beast and Illithid, amongst others. They are just creatures from a game with no references outside of a DnD-context. So I cannot say that I can find 'reliable' and 'independent' sources on snotlings, but in this case, I feel that those are not as necessary. Can we merge spoon into cutlery? Haven't read much news about those lately, either. Stijndon (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do keep suggesting other non-notable proprietary fantasy creatures which have articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those should go, too, right? They are just as invalid as snotlings are. Just go to Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures and PROD them all, with this debate as jurisprudence. It wouldn't be fair to keep those. Let's at least be consistent. Stijndon (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they should all stay. There's no legitimate reason why a paperless encyclopedia would not at worst redirect without deleting these articles. Don't dwell on the disputed and subjective concept of notability. If at worst, WP:IGNOREALLRULES, as the most important thing is for us to be a comprehensive reference guide that gives our community of readers and editors what it wants. As such outright deleting this verifiable article that appears in various incarnations that several editors clearly believe is notable (something that has diverse use, receives multiple keep arguments, and can be verified is notable by any logical standard anyway) would hinder our ability to improve Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they should stay. One of the coolest things about wikipedia is being able to read up on almost any random, valid topic! Stijndon (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Now that the relevant projects are finally serious about respecting the encyclopedia's standards for notability, I expect that those listed which don't have significant coverage in independent third-party sources will gradually be removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Primary sources can be used for verification, but not to establish notability. No notability is established through independent third-party sources, because they don't exist. Although I have to say that it is beyond awesome that there is on Earth a man named Chris Snotling. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Isn't the fact that loads of people feel the urge to post pictures of their snotlings on the web a form of notability? This is really a question, not some attempt to make a point. I would guess it is - so why isn't it? Stijndon (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is to any reasonable person. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Note to self: Maybe I'm not "reasonable"...) I think it's really more vanity/showing off (in a sense), along the lines of "Look at these miniatures I've painted, aren't they swell!" It's not so much that they are pictures of snotlings, or any other creature/beast/man/tank/spaceship/etc, but people showing their painting skills that might happen to be on those models (maybe they *like* the models, but that's immaterial). Some of these types of postings are really "how-to" guides, i.e. "here's how I painted my figures" and are instructional material on painting techniques. There are plenty of "how-to" guides about how to build your own scenery for wargames (with plenty of accompanying pictures), but do articles about how to build bombed-out buildings or tank traps contribute to notability for "Ruins" or "Tank traps"? (And, of course, you should filter out all of the eBay (and other auction) listings as those don't "count" for notability as obviously people display their pictures to flog their wares.) Of course this is my opinion and yours may vary. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So how can any modern fictional thing now be notable? Is there any justification for an article on warhammer at all? Its article is a mix of blatant advertising (wrong), how to play (WP:not-a-manual) and copyright infringement, filled up with non-notable things. I find it flabbergasting that an article on snotlings is so strongly opposed, whereas it is obvious that a large group of people may eventually want to read it ("Oh look, it's linked! Let's check it out real quick." And I meant the cocky painters that wanted to show off their mad skills by accidentally having painted a snotling instead of something impressive.) Doesn't "suitable for a specialised encyclopedia" mean anything? I thought that was one of the general includability-guidelines. Where do you draw this line? somewhere above snotlings, obviously, though I do not concur. Stijndon (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry as given that numerous editors and readers have been working on and reading this article since 2004 coupled with the many keep "votes" in this discussion, it is fairly clear that the actual community consensus is to keep as a handful of deletes in one five day discussion does not reflect the much longer community attitude toward this article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You draw the line, obviously, at subjects which do not have significant coverage in independent third-party sources. Warhammer Fantasy Battle has oodles of these. Snotling does not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had rather draw the line at something that cannot be verified anymore. It is obvious that snotlings "exist," and not only are they suitable material for specialised encyclopediae, they're even published in one. And yes, this was published by the copyrightholders of snotlings, but does that matter? I would gladly PROD anything that seems trivial and cannot be verified, like some obscure musical genre or some aspiring actress's vanity page. But snotlings can so be verified. What is the point in deleting them? Is there a point? At first I wanted to put the {user=deletionist} thing on my page, but this debate makes me refrain from that. Stijndon (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where individual editors would rather draw the line is beside the point, Le Grand Roi's arguments aside. Of course it matters that the only place a non-trivial account of the subject has been posted is in an "encyclopedia" commissioned by the copyright holders: they make money out of selling the miniatures, so it's in their business to cover them extensively. However, if no other source has done so then they evidently are not important to the world at large. The line is not "does it exist", the line is "has it been covered in a non-trivial way by a reasonable number of independent third-party sources". This hasn't. Arguments which fail to address this shortcoming are bogus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are all the non-Games Workshop google images not independent sources? Oh wait, those were posted by painters looking to make a buck by showing off their painting skillz. And the encyclopedia only contained snotlings to further milk the cashcow that they obviously are. Those arguments are so poor! It looks like all sources are getting lumped in the "unimportant" "not notable" or "blatant advertisement" categories, and all keepers are "individual editors who've misdrawn their lines." Nice. Stijndon (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason all sources are being lumped into these categories is because they are. Think about it - Games Workshop sell millions of miniatures every year. If the simple ownership and display of these miniatures in sufficient numbers is an indicator of notability, that basically means any GW miniature is worthy of an article. This is definitely not the current consensus of the project. There is nothing to be said about the subject of the snotling which isn't game-guide or in-universe, which accounts for the complete lack of sourcing, and as such a real-world encyclopedia shouldn't have an article on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that Wikipedia should only have non-specialised articles on general stuff. Stijndon (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. It's the consensus of the project. The place to change that is not across random AfD decisions, even if it seems likely that the extended opening of this one is going to result in a no-consensus decision. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really the consensus of the project. If it was thousands of editors would not create, work on, come here to read, and/or argue to keep these articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plot summary of a non-notable fictional creature. Craw-daddy's excellent analysis of the "sources" strongly indicates that this topic has not received substantial coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explaining my Keep Are people telling us that they exist as a conceept beyond Warhammer? That would increase the notability considerably. this will of course need references, but if the widespread use claimed is present, this should be possible/ The criterion is of course, sourceable, not already-sourced. Primary sources can be used for any purpose at all if they are reliable for showing what they are needed to show--in this case that the plot elements are the major part of a notable fictional universe,and therefore appropriate for an article. That notability is not popularity means that unpopular things too can be notable. If something is popular enough, its notable. DGG (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Here we go again. The books, magazines and references on Warhammer subjects are almost exclusively produced under the direct control of the game manufacturer. Because they wield explicit and strong control over their intellectual property, an unlicensed fictional or out of universe account of this unit is highly unlikely. The significant coverage available on this subject comes from Games Workshop publications and publishing houses (White Dwarf, Fanatic magazine, the codexes and the works of fiction are all published and produced by games workshop). The sources listed above in the AfD (as no independent sources in the article are cited) provide a textbook definition of what is meant by a trivial mention. Each source either mentions the text string "snotling" in an entirely different context or only mentions it in passing on the way to discuss another subject. It is plainly not our business to populate this encyclopedia with items simply because some company has published material about them. This feeling is expressed in the guideline WP:N and in the overall outcome for the warhammer AfD's (overwhelmingly, the articles are deleted or redirected). We should respect that consensus and that guideline and delete this article as it fails the general notability guideline and meets no daughter guideline. Arguments to keep the article based on logs of edits, searches, or inherited notability don't cut the mustard. Delete it. Protonk (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

  • Apparently, there is an entry for "Snotlings" in a published encyclopedia. What's good for published encyclopedias is good for a paperless encyclopedia and consistent with our also containing elements of sepcialized encyclopedias. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the "published encyclopedia" you are referring to Wikipeida or the game guide printed by the same company that has published all other Warhammer related material? --Allen3 talk 22:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's referring to "the official encyclopedia of the Warhammer World". Guess who the publisher is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all fictional items can claim appearance in a published encyclopedia, which just further augments the reasons for keeping. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all published encyclopedias can claim to be an independent source --T-rex 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all works of fiction bother to also make published encyclopedias. Has anyone check for reviews of that encyclopedia? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and redirect to Goblinoid - no claim to be notable. Zero independent sources --T-rex 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you know that zero independent sources does not always apply. Go read up on Taxation in the United States and its sources are all written by the IRS. Hardly independent. The argument about lack of independent sources has been rehashed a lot here, and some of us keep feeling that it doesn't apply. It's just some plot points is another argument we hear a lot. Now go read any article on any minor Harry Potter character and not only is it just a bunch of plot points, it's also purely sourced out of books from the same publisher. I think that snotlings are just getting a huge voting-trend against them that they do not deserve. It's a relatively well-written article, it's verifiable, and to some sub-population it is notable. And there are sources... Horribly pandering, flogging, blatantly advertising sources of people trying to either sell little snotling statues or show off their painting skills. For real? I would think those were acceptable here. Stijndon (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taxation in the United States has over twenty good references and most of them aren't, in fact, written by the IRS. House-elf isn't a particularly good example of a keepworthy article, but that's not a great argument. We do not have a different level of notability for fiction than we do for other content, no matter how much some editors believe we should, and we should use the policies that have consensus across the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how much some editors don't want to work on certain articles or don't like them, isn't reason why those who do can't or shouldn't. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:JNN is not a a valid reason for deletion when the topic is without any reasonable doubt notable and independent sources exist. Redirectable material is not also deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except nobody in the above 20 comments at least claimed WP:JNN and that there are no independent sources --T-rex 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jedilofty urged me to expand further on my earlier comment. Primary sources can be used for any purpose at all if they are reliable for showing what they are needed to show--in this case that the plot elements are the major part of a notable fictional universe, and therefore appropriate for an article. That notability is not popularity means that unpopular things too can be notable. If something is popular enough, it's notable. People tend to confuse Notability and Verifiability. For subjects of this sort, V can be done through primary nonindependent sources--whatever the best sources are for the subject at hand. If the game is notable, whether the component parts of chaeacters and setting are appropriate for an article is not a matter of independent notability,but of convenience in dividing an article--only the overall topic need show notability, not the subarticles. The wording of the WP GNC: N=2RS, has confused many people--but its just a back up in case we can't figure out whether a subject we do not understand or have no criteria for is likely to be notable. It does not apply here. WP is not a game guide--we do not want that kind of detail--but the detailed information in a game guide is a suitable source for an article in Wikipedia DGG (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No it isn't. It's no different from plot material. It can be used as supporting fluff to explain a notable concept, but it certainly isn't notable in and of itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LGRdC and DGG, especially the last sentence above.John Z (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - even after all these days on afd the article still fails to list any independent sources. These keep arguments are not holding up. --T-rex 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per the cogent comments by LGRdC and DGG Ecoleetage (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable race which has appeared elsewhere apart from 40k. Given time we can find 3rd party sources I suspect. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only "elsewhere" the race has appeared is in other Games Workshop properties. The word "snotling" is a trademark of Games Workshop. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even its use there is sufficient for keeping in some manner or other. I don't think we'd get much opposition for a compromise merge and redirect if it came down to it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LGRdC, DGG and Casliber. I don't expect articles to be rewritten and sources found in the space of AfD. Banjeboi 03:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my opinion this term doesn't meet the GNG (at least as far as I can find). However, I do think this is an example of a place where the GNG is wrong. The non-independent sources allow for sourcing to meet WP:V, and in my search for this term I read through a lot of sources using the term. Most in the context of the game (mainly painting the minis) but some outside. Further, I found some pretty good reviews/overviews of Snotlings, but mainly in blog/forum type locations (self-published and thus not a RS.) The problem is that the term is clearly notable and worth having here. It is heavily used (25,000-75,000 ghits depending on how you do the search), shows up in RS reviews (as a passing reference) and simply belongs here. So an IAR !vote to keep. Hobit (talk) 06:00, 18 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Snotling&oldid=1136108118"