Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tharizdun

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tharizdun[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details and other primary information better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable. 3rd party sources, i have them. Web Warlock (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I find this massive string of AfDs to be of very bad faith. You are taking advantage of the community knowing full well it takes you SECONDS to tag an article but it takes us HOURS or DAYS to do the research. I formally request that you give us the time needed and stop tagging articles. To continue to do so will be considered a bad faith edit and I will revert. Web Warlock (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note2 I added more sources last night. I have a stack of Challenge magazines to go through and some more Pegasus magazines.Web Warlock (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That comment sure is blatant WP:AGF violation. Users are free to nominate any number of article they want for AfD, and all of TTN's nominations have been sound and made on articles unlikely to ever be notable, and the closes confirm it so far. They will result in merges anyway, so if sources arise, articles can easily be restored and no harm is done. Your complaint is utterly misplaced: all these articles have existed for YEARS, there was time enough for the D&D wikiproject to research sources. WP:N and WP:NOTPLOT have also been around for years, so don't try to act as if these were suddenly imposed on you by TTN's nomination. The real problem is the unchecked proliferation of D&D fancruft; just because it took SECONDS to create an article, some felt they could just turn this into a D&D fanwiki, but that time is over, so deal with it. Compared to the five fucking thousand total D&D articles, TTN's dozen of nominations are nothing, so feel free to bring all the others up to notability standards instead of threatening good users who merely try to apply the rules that some didn't bother to respect.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, a very large percentage of your five thousand count of pages are actually not articles. If you scroll through that list you will find that many of them are categories, portal pages, project pages, redirects, templates, and over 1000 of the pages are files such as images. BOZ (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i am not sure that the claim that "The problem is not only bad articles but a proliferation of crufty meta content and copyright materials" actually makes the situation any better.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on both counts. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Fait_accompli.Geni (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fait accompli" is moot when said edits are done within the bound of applicable policies and guidelines, and the opposition acts counter to these. Besides, AfD is a discussion and consensus process, conditions of "fait accompli" are not even met.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read a bit more of that case before making such assertions.Geni (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like the problem hasn't been apparent for years (tons of discussions in the project talk page archives), and I already tried the slow approach years ago. In the end, all the articles that I had merged were brought back with absolutely nothing of value. These articles currently assert absolutely nothing in regard to future potential, so there is really no need to wait. If some obscure text sources are required to establish notability, it can always be brought back, as it's not like any of the outcomes are unreversible. TTN (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - extending good faith to Webwarlock on this one; this guy is the villain of The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, and basically 4th edition D&D. BOZ (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is a time for good faith - the years that this sat around waiting for sources- however, at an AfD one is actually required to present the evidence. The links you have provided are primary sources and not sufficient in addressing the WP:GNG threshold. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Already looks like there are multiple secondary sources present in the article as it stands now. I echo WebWarlock's concerns of serial AFD'ing: At some point, based on the outcomes of his prior attempts, TTN knows or should know that his attempts at deletion are turning into merge vs. redirect discussions. At some point, we simply cannot continue AGF'ing that he actually believes there is a SNOW chance of any of these actually being deleted. TTN is no stranger to unilateral attempts to merge or delete pop culture content; TTN should know better. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are valid deletion candidates, and it is not my problem if there is no chance of an actual deletion outcome. Dealing with fiction is different than BLP and other topics in the first place. I'm not attempting to force merges with this because I do not really care if these are merged. Very little would end up ported over in the first place with most of these, so deletion is the preferred outcome to keep them from being recreated. TTN (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the assertion of third party sources can only be made on a "first glance" - the sources that are not published by TSR, the company that bought it out Wizards of the Coast or the officially nonindependent licensee Piazo Publishing are authored by Larry Schick non independent source as an authorized writer and creator for D&D materials. While it is possible that the Appelcline book would be a useful source (in fact it might be an amazing source for all kinds of articles if it goes into the details of the game design process), currently there is no evidence that there is any significant coverage of the subject of the article, merely a reprint of publication history.~And then there is a blog by some guy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First run at sources while on my phone. Real research takes time. Care to help? Web Warlock (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TTN, per WP:DEL-REASON, failure to meet notability guidelines is a valid deletion rationale. That consensus in discussions can result in merges rather than outright deletion is out of TTN's hand, and as far as I'm concerned, I only !vote merge for the sake of compromise, the mergeable content being almost exclusively detailed plot summary, I would have no problem to see it gone for good. Finally, Jclemens is reminded to comment on content and not on the contributor, TTN's nominations and the ensuing consensuses are not "unilateral attempts" in any way, and AfD is no place for groundless accusations or badgering an editor for his position on fiction.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that repeated deletion nominations in light of an unbroken string of non-deleted nominations of similar topics becomes a WP:POINT violation at some point--it's pretending that content policies are normative, rather than descriptive. Finally, Folken de Fanel is reminded that past misconduct is absolutely relevant to discussions that turn on whether nominations deserve the continued presumption of good faith, as he knows firsthand as a reformed sockpuppetteer. Jclemens (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pfhffhththt - as if he had taken the unbroken string of merges and redirects and proceeded to merege and redirect that you would not have accused him of also violations. THIS page is for the discussion of whether or not the Tharizdun meets the criteria for a stand alone article. If you issues with his behavior, the ANI is thataway. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, WP:DISAGREEWITHJCLEMENS is not yet a WP:POINT violation. Nothing to add to TRPOD's comment, non-disruptive complaints about user behavior happen on WP:ANI and nowhere else.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep. 1980s so there will be fanzine coverage (fanzines have editors who tend to know rather a lot about the topic of the fanzine thus somewhat surprisingly they often pass WP:RS).Geni (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- !) at an AfD vague claims that sources exist are of no value. 2) a fanzine is no more automatically a reliable source than a blog. anyone can take their typewritten proclamations to a copyshop and have a 100 copies run off - that in no way makes them an expert. so if you wish your comment to have any bearing on the outcome, you will need to actually produce some of these fanzines so that their qualification as to whether or not they meet the RS standard can be determined. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have better things do with my time than dig through the relevant university and deposit library archives. The question is it likely that such sources exist. They don't actually have to be produced otherwise we end up with an even worse bias towards things that are online. The reality is fanzines tend towards the editor model because writing all the stuff yourself is hard work.Geni (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but your lack of effort does not impress me into believing you that sources exist, nor do your generalized claims about editorial process show any chance of meeting WP:RS criteria. (a particular fanzine might indeed meet the criteria for WP:RS but it would indeed be a rare duck). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is now coverage in at least four reliable, independent sources, including rather substantial coverage from a source I just added. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please identify which four sources you consider significant reliable and independent. see [1] - the sources all appear to be primary or non reliable or non independent or non significant coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Oerth Journal source I added is significant, reliable, and independent. The Appelcline, Schick, and Tresca sources (5-7) are all reliable and independent. The Tresca source is decent, borderline on substantial. I don't have the other two sources to see how much depth there is to their coverage. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree about Schick. That book deals with many RPGs, not just D&D, and the book was not published by any D&D-related company. Schick is also a founding member of the Academy of Game Critics. He has the proper credentials to be an independent source. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While Schick may have done /other/ things and written about D&D in the context of other games, neither of those in any way eliminate the fact that he was closely involved in D&D for many years and has vested and financial interest in boosting D&D.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with Oerth Journal or Paul Stormberg what should we know that would show that they are reliable and independent ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) http://oerthjournal.blogspot.com/p/oerth-journal-downloads.html Issues of the OJ appear to be hosted on blogspot, i am not going to add a link to the article as it is unclear if the blogsite has copyright permission. but it does have this to say And speaking of "fan-created"... It seems to be a popular misconception that only the work of a few people is published in The Oerth Journal in particular, but that is simply not true. Anyone (emph in original) can submit their writing to The Oerth Journal, or to Canonfire!, and the same can be said of Canonfire! Chronicles once it is launched. And don?t forget Postfest! too, as that is a great avenue for getting one's feet wet. That's how I started off myself. Little did I know what I was getting myself into, but don't let that put you off from doing so! :D" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per this page, Oerth Journal is a self-published fanzine with an incestuous relationship with Wizards of the Coast, as many of its editors and contributors became full time WotC employees while they kept on publishing in the fanzine.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~While I agree about these sources being independent~~, merely stating where the character appeared is not significant. We're expecting proper commentary and analysis, not just paraphrasis of primary content. Recanting my previous statement on independence, Lawrence Schick is affiliated as a D&D writer and I share TRPoD's above view on this one. Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Schick: he worked for TSR from 1979–81; I wouldn't consider approximately three years to be many. In fact, he had already left the company before the first product that mentioned Tharizdun was released in 1982. His work at TSR formed a tiny fraction of his career, and the Heroic Worlds book came out a decade after he had left. To be clear, he had nothing to do with the conception or development of the subject of this article.
On Oerth Journal: it had an editorial staff and oversight, which can be found listed in the individual articles. Also, because people who had an interest in the game wrote articles about it there, and then went onto work for the company, that doesn't mean their pre-employment work is no longer reliable or independent. As far as I can tell, no one who wrote for OJ did so at the same time they were writing official works for TSR or WoTC. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re Schick - he was only there for 3 years? I thought I remembered seeing his name everywhere on everything for a very long time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most game designers were not employed by the companies they wrote for, but independent contractors. Schick himself is present on Facebook, hangs out in gaming groups, and still discusses the things he's made. It was cool to hear him talk about how he wrote White Plume Mountain as a Spec module and never expected it to be published as-is, which it was. IIRC, it was that module that got him hired. So, as far as games go, then, the author would be non-independent when discussing their own work, but there is also an exception in WP:SELFPUB that covers such sources. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Greyhawk deities, as there is no significant coverage from multiple reliable independent secondary sources, topic doesn't establish notability per WP:GNG. The newly added sources don't even allow the article to comply to WP:NOTPLOT.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major fictional character appearing in multiple works and with plenty of sources to support this. Our editing policy trumps the bickering about guidelines and so there is not case for deletion. Warden (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

determining whether sources actually meet the WP:GNG standards is not "bickering about guidelines". If there if there is not significant content from reliably published independent sources available, then it is impossible to "fix the problems" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:FAILN deletion should be the last resort for unclear notability. The article can be fixed and expanded. 42of8 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"expanded"...With what sources exactly ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2013 (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.