Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiles of the Hold (2nd nomination)

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. As ever, discussion on whether to merge or redirect the article somewhere can be taken up on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiles of the Hold[edit]

List was previously deleted as nonnotable in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiles of the Hold in September 2008. As this list had a little more (in-universe) information than the AfDed list, I chose not to speedy it as WP:CSD#G4 and prodded it instead. Prod-tag was removed with some explanation at the article's talkpage (Talk:Tiles of the Hold), but I am (still) not convinced that his list should be included in wikipedia (nothing significant found on Google Books/Scholar/News), so here we are again. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This article has been updated, and although, at present, it does not meet notability guidelines there are at least two forthcoming novels that will use this information. Prior to them, two novels have used this information in an introductory note and practical note. Also, a reason for the lack notability in 'Google' hits is because of the complexity of the series and only a few sites have gone and done work on it. Google Scholar rarely has fiction elements on it. Google News would not have anything to do with elements of a book, unless there is a book review in a magazine, which usually is not detailed enough to give away plot. No information is original research based on primary source material. It is directly from the book although formatted for readability and put into context. This information will be useful in the future. There is no reason to delete it. Thank you, Krmarshall (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Note: Krmarshall is the article re-creator.) Articles that were recently deleted through consensus should not be recreated unless the concerns of the previous AfD no longer apply (which is not the case here), or unless WP:DRV overrules the AfD (also not the case). Original research was not noted as a reason for deletion here. If consensus in this AfD determines that this list should be kept, then that's also fine. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete If there are forthcoming novels that will make this notable, then when the novels have been published and there is some comment on them, it should be possible to write an article. DGG (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I have analyzed this further, below. DGG (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 00:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep or userfy, editor is obviously making a good faith effort to improve the article. travb (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin, please check the page history for the merits of this claim. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new editor removed the AfD tag[1] and Sgeureka replaced it. I did this the first time my article was put up for deletion too. The new editor had a mere 365 edits before they created the page.

Since we are questioning good faith now, I think the question is whether this nomination was in good faith. The policy WP:PRESERVE states that "whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information, instead of removing" WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL state that deletion of an article should be a last resort. In this case, deletion was the first resort. The article should be userfied or kept. travb (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete How can you have a "Keep" argument that says the subject is not notable? No reliable third party sources address the subject. The only source is from the book itself. There is no policy or guideline basis for a keep argument. The good faith of the editor not withstanding. As the source for this is the book itself, this is WP:OR at best. There is no point in userfying this. The quality of the keep arguments here astounds me. Dloh cierekim 03:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Add delete per arguments presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiles of the Hold. As this is a mere recreation of material deleted after that discussion, as there is no improvement and no sourcing, as as there is no basis for keep arguments, Speedy Deletion as recreated material is certainly appropriate. Dloh cierekim 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note is taken that the creator of the article is a participant in the discussion. Dloh cierekim 03:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge as I am about to suggest. I've been asked to reconsider. I think major plot elements in fiction are always notable if the fiction is notable enough. I think these are not major plot elements, but minor ones, just part of the background machinery, and would only be notable if the fiction were exceptionally notable. I see no evidence of anything more. But I do not know the series, so I may well be wrong; I am judging only by the material in the Wikipedia articles, which do not seem of great clarity. If I am wrong, there should be discussions of the books in which these are referred to , and I do not see this. I have my doubts about Deck of the Dragons, but at least this seems to apply to the entire series. This seems to apply to one part of the fictional universe only. Perhaps then they two articles should be merged, unde some such title as Divination in The Malazan Book of the Fallen, with a possible redirect from this title. Otherwise, it seems unduely specialized. As usual, I don;t really think afd is the best place for such discussions. DGG (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep On the one hand it's a bit in universesque, on the other hand it's a worthile listing that's relevant to a successful novel. I lean towards including it somehow in a tightened format or even merged into parent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and there is nothing to preserve. Userpages are not preserves for indiscriminate, nn info that dose not met notability. Wikipedia is not a plot summary. Useful is not an notability criterion. cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete no reliable sources sufficient to establish notability for this thoroughly unencyclopedic list about the minute details of a fantasy series.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still Keep:

I agree with Inclusionist:

Since we are questioning good faith now, I think the question is whether this nomination was in good faith. The policy WP:PRESERVE states that "whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information, instead of removing" WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL state that deletion of an article should be a last resort. In this case, deletion was the first resort. The article should be userfied or kept.

What harm is there to keeping this article alive. I have added to it, again. And believe there is still more to add. I have a busy life outside of this, so it takes some time to create a full article. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither are articles.Krmarshall (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Magic in the Malazan Book of the Fallen (probably along with every other article in the Magic section of Template:MBF), a description of these would obviously be relevant to the main subject but the main body of this article is unnecessary plot detail which does not contribute to an encyclopaedic understanding of the topic. Guest9999 (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2009 (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.