Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wood between the Worlds

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 merge to Narnia (world)#Cosmology. The existence of sources about a subtopic of a well-defined larger topic is necessary, but not sufficient, for the existence of a standalone article; there also needs to be a valid reason for keeping the material separate. No such rationale has been provided here. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wood between the Worlds[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)

This does not meet the WP:GNG as there isn't significant coverage that is more than a trivial mention. There is a trivial mention connecting this to the novel The Wood Beyond the World, but the rest of this is entirely WP:OR. Jontesta (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article is mostly referenced. Why should it be that "the rest of this is entirely WP:OR"? Daranios (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Narnia (world)#Cosmology. The Narnia article needs a lot of work, so utilizing content from this seems the most sensible. The topic doesn't seem like it'd ever have undue weight in the main article. TTN (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Narnia (world)#Cosmology - The basics of what it is, is already covered fairly well there, but could stand to have some of the information and sources moved over. This is one of those WP:NOPAGE situations, where its better to cover the topic as part of the broader concept where there is more context, rather than spinning it out to a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Article is mostly WP:PLOT summary, which is what Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT. There isn't WP:SIGCOV of how this has been received outside of the fiction, and agree that the in-universe details are better presented in context. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic and its significance is discussed in a number of secondary sources. I think WP:GNG/WP:WHYN could be fullfilled with the this article (has just short of a page) and this one (has a several-page section on the topic). Deletion is not clean-up, so with the help of this secondary sources WP:NOT is no longer an issue. WP:NOPAGE may apply, which could have been evaluated in a merge discussion. But stating broadly "does not meet the WP:GNG as there isn't significant coverage that is more than a trivial mention" indicates in this case that no WP:BEFORE search was done; when notability/lack of sources is the main argument, this in my view is a WP:Disruptive misuse of the WP:Deletion process. Daranios (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Narnia (world)#Cosmology. Not every topic mentioned in secondary sources is worth having a seperate article on. I do not think this has enough to merit a free standing article. We are better off developing articles with substance than a lot of little articles on small aspects of the plot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the articles uncovered by Daranios. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the articles uncovered by @Daranios: or merge with Narnia (world)#Cosmology in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 26.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Narnia (world)#Cosmology. Even if the subject is technically notable, notability is a necessary but not sufficient criterium for inclusion. Another consideration is editorial in nature: it is unhelpful to readers and invites the addition of excessive detail to cover a (relatively minor) element of a (relatively unimportant) fictional work in its own article. Such content is better presented in the context of an article about the work. Sandstein 13:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an AfD outcome. While merging is reasonable, independent notability has been demonstrated so any merger should be a merge discussion, rather than an enforced AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator the point of Wikipedia is to build WP:CONSENSUS. Considering that every !vote here expressed that a merge is a reasonable outcome as per WP:NOPAGE, I am willing to join the WP:CONSENSUS to resolve this issue.

As a tangent, Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. ... A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." I don't think this AFD was made in error, and merger is a valid outcome given that this topic isn't notable separate from existing articles. But even that aside, it's WP:DISRUPTIVE to acknowledge a consensus around a reasonable solution, and still find some misinterpretation of procedure in order to prolong a dispute. Jontesta (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2022 (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.