Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volothamp Geddarm

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volothamp Geddarm[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lack of significant coverage in third-party sources. What little we have is a passing mention and two references from a non-notable magazine that ran for 1.5 years in the mid-90s, and isn't even listed on the page of its publisher. Dates are screwed up because of some old edit wars over tags, but the article has had maintenance tags since 2008. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Games. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What little we have gives us a decent reception section as a basis for a non-stubby article, thus fullfilling WP:WHYN. The Paste article dedicates 2+ paragraphs to Volo, so that's not a passing mention in my view. I don't see why Arcane should not be considered reliable for its area of expertise, i.e. fantasy. In addition to the present sources, this Giochi per il mio computer article, p. 102, has a paragraph dedicated explicitly to Volo. Sources with shorter commentary are Dungeons & Dragons is changing how it makes books, Volo's Guide to Monsters giveaway, Composing Media Composing Embodiment. Daranios (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arcane was not a long-lived magazine, but as a full-colour glossy that published each month on time and used a stable of good writers and artists, it was respected in the field of fantasy role-playing while it lasted. Its reader poll to determine the best 50 RPGs of all time was a first for the industry, and is still used extensively in other wiki articles. Neither of the reviews in Arcane nor the article in Paste were "passing mentions", and both delved into the reasons for the popularity of Volothamp. I would like to see some of the sources indicated by Daranios incorporated into the article, but even without them, the article is notable. Guinness323 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel the issue here is perhaps that the character themselves is being used where a series article would make more sense. The article itself states "It is through Volo's perspective that Ed Greenwood authored his detailed Forgotten Realms lore-books of the Volo's Guide series". It's possible this could be moved to Volo's Guide and be about the series, mentioning the actual character within the context of that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although I see what you are saying, at what point does a fictional character become notable enough to have their own article? Guinness323 (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states that multiple sources of significance are needed. I am unconvinced that Volo is notable based on the sources provided, but I haven't !voted to merge or something because I feel like the series itself is actually notable. Paste Magazine's definitely the biggest, but it entirely talks about him in the context of how the books are from his perspective. Meanwhile, the Polygon article that isn't the giveaway is meatily about Volo's Guide but only tangentially about Volo himself. Therefore I think the best option here is to move it to the Volo's Guide series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care too much either way. I think the commentary of secondary sources on Volo as a literary device would fit equally well into our article here or a Volo's Guides article. The commentary on Volo as a character (like the short sentences in the Polygon articles and the whole content of the Giochi per il mio computer article) fit better into our article dedicated to the character, but could be fitted into a series article as well. It remains that I believe there's enough material for the character to be notable (and too much to conveniently fit into Forgotten Realms#Characters), and the question of how to present that material best is a secondary question, which ideally can be solved outside a deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to have a lot more real-world significance than most other D&D characters. I'm seeeing some usable coverage in the popular press (e.g., in relation to the recent film) and academic work (e.g., in relation to him as an 'author' of real-world books). Josh Milburn (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above comments on available sourcing. BOZ (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I will put my vote in as acknowledging that something about Volo is probably notable - I think it's the series, but that's more of a matter for a move discussion than an AfD, and some manner of page about him should remain on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:32, 5 August 2023 (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.