392:"; that's exactly why the latter word is considered such bad form. While I'm on the subject, since someone made something of as snide comment to me in a previous AfD: I don't read these books, and I don't play these games (and I don't think "game guide" has anything to do with this topic anyway, since he's a main character in a novel simply based upon a game). I have no vested interested in making Knowledge (XXG) a "fansite," or a collection of trivial material. On the other hand, I'm aware of what the community has decided about these matters, and I can tell (unless the articles are lying, and my memory is foggy) that the topics you continually nominate sometimes very often notable. I'm not saying you have never nominated non-notable elements of fictional universes, but I tend to not vote on those AfDs, because, well... it's obvious that the community will take care of them anyway, and things are rarely helped by a pile-on (also, I don't want to actually
781:, as I've said before. It looks like it conforms to the policies and guidelines, but that's more by coincidence than by design. Probably, some of these AfDs put up are going to succeed, but that seems at this point like it will be a luck of the draw based upon others who share your views, rather than the mounting consensus (a policy) that strengthens with every article of this type that is kept. As I said in more than one previous AfD, there comes a point when Notability may be safely presumed (without "harm" to Knowledge (XXG)) by common sense based upon widespread reader base, and various other elements that exist here. As far as the deletion nominations, we can keep doing this as long as you like, I suppose... but it is getting a little old.
341:. Sounds like this boils down to "other stuff exists". There are many articles that don't meet WP:FICT which have been deleted by the same user consensus you cite here. Knowledge (XXG) is not a game guide, by the way. The consensus isn't upheld in AfDs, either; articles are kept when there is no consensus that they be kept, which is part of the reason that so much of this cruft exists. --
777:
criteria for deletion and inclusion. What we have here is your belief that this information is "marginal," and because it's not important to you, guidelines should be applied as policies, and policies (if they did exist, which they don't) should be used as a club to beat
Knowledge (XXG) into the shape you believe it should take. That's basically
366:. There IS a difference; one of which is that the latter is an actual policy on this site. In terms of the content of these two elements of our discussion (as I said in my previous chat with you about these matters) it's one thing to say, "Keep simply because article X exists," and quite another to say, "Keep, because the
776:
Secondly, it is insufficient not only historically (the low success rate of these AfDs that I've alluded to before) but policy-wise. I respect the guidelines as much as any other editor, but I realize that the reason these are not policies is because they are insufficient on their own to guide the
370:
article X was kept are also applicable here." If you think that the pages I referenced were all - or mostly - retained through "no consensus" rather than "keep," then this points out the need for two things: a) Take an actual look at the pages I cite; you'll see a fair bit of straight keeps, and
314:
entirely ignores the need for actual consideration of the scope of the works under discussion. Two or three nominators with a decided agenda consistently nominate the very articles that would best exemplify the need for looking at the big picture instead of wiki-lawyering, and then hold that the
737:
for our purposes) uses independent, third-party sources as one means by which to presume notability. The claim is often made that the works in which these characters appear are insufficient because they are not "independent;" I don't buy that, because we find multiple authors contributing to a
754:
for which you tend to recommend deletion are the ones for which these clauses were included). Making blanket statements about fictional characters is recognized in
Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficient to delete (or even, often, merge) articles by more than the mere denizens of fandom, myself
639:
a stub is "an article containing only a few sentences of text... Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they lack wikification or copy editing." b) A main character of a large number of hugely notable books cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered merely a
383:
with little reflection on your success rate on these specific types of articles. And yes, I am aware that sometimes the articles so nominated are deleted, but that's partly because, and I've read them, no one involved pointed out the error of obscuring the spirit of the
750:, the more strictly the independent, third-party guideline needs to be applied (note the "occasional exception" and "common sense" clauses; it indicates that there are times when it need not be so rigidly applied as you're insisting - and
728:- I understand you believe that, and this has been the fuel for this run of AfDs. I think it's a mostly valid viewoint, but at its heart it's incorrect, and this is why we disagree so often in these discussions. The statement that "Only
150:
D&D cruft. Article is entirely in-universe, sole source from www.wizards.com is not independent of the subject (D&D publisher's website). No claim of notability, and no encyclopedic treatment from the persective of this unverse.
732:
can establish notability under WP Guidelines" is not only untrue, but insufficient in this (and almost every other) case of the discussions we've been involved with so far. In the first place, it is untrue because the guideline
746:, because fact-checking (the impetus behind the need for independence of source) is hardly an issue as the characters are defined within that written work itself. The more likely the claims are to be
295:
115:
738:
number of resources with no particular interest in furthering the salability of the specific objects/characters in question. We aren't talking about a product or a website, and at
585:
440:
287:
291:
315:
ones !voting "keep" and "merge" are ignoring policy. I believe it's exactly the other way around, and the community at large seems to be in tune with that concept.
534:
249:
Aye, I'd be happy to change my !vote to keep if you can provide a secondary reliable sources demonstrating extensive coverage in non-"in-universe" contexts.
620:. Call him Thorhammer, Battlehammer or Wolfhammer, fictional characters like this have no real world notability other than he gets +15 attack points
88:
83:
122:
Non-notable fictional character. Insufficient third-party references exist to write a substantial, verifiable, and maintainable WikiPedia article.
92:
443:
for which we both supplied comments, but that particular statement (the diff. between WAX and CONSENSUS) wasn't actually said in reply to you.
75:
302:
characters) of tremendously notable works, which is exactly what we have here, are presumed notable per the "common sense" clause in the
527:
712:
can establish notability under WP Guidelines. Stip away the in universe perspective, and there is insufficient content for a stub. --
17:
498:
523:
298:
and a host of other places. Current consensus on
Knowledge (XXG), upheld in countless AfDs, is that major characters (esp. the
794:
677:
456:
409:
328:
310:
guidelines - multiple, independent, secondary sources are simply one way of drawing that conclusion. All this harping on
834:
36:
263:
I have added several independent sources. The remainder, I think, should be referenced directly out of the novels. —
820:
799:
716:
682:
627:
595:
575:
563:
551:
510:
484:
461:
431:
414:
350:
333:
274:
258:
244:
221:
202:
181:
160:
141:
57:
79:
742:
the "independent" argument is a gray area. Further still, I consider it a rather silly argument in the case of
648:
is coloring your vision here from the somewhat contemptuous tone you have employed. c) The notability guideline
833:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
388:
guideline rather than it's (often) poorly-understood letter. One man's encyclopedic content is another man's "
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
778:
645:
169:
661:
379:
of the consensus for some bizzare reason, this might explain why you're so doggedly plowing through your
363:
210:— Bruenor is a major character who has appeared in multiple notable fiction works by a notable author. —
652:
common sense in order to properly determine whether or not a character is presumed notable; it does not
389:
358:- What this boils down to is that you might benefit greatly from understanding the difference between
817:
549:
519:
506:
71:
63:
254:
156:
782:
713:
665:
624:
592:
444:
427:
397:
346:
316:
137:
53:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
743:
657:
636:
613:
307:
232:
190:
268:
215:
705:
621:
605:
359:
172:; notable Forgotten Realms character that has been a main character in a number of novels.
641:
617:
544:
515:
502:
240:
198:
729:
709:
609:
635:- That assessment is incorrect on at least three points; a) It is not a stub, for, from
664:. If it seems I am repeating myself here, at least I'm not copying-and-pasting (yet).
560:
250:
152:
734:
385:
371:
those that fall to "no consensus" do so only because of the tiny cadre of editors who
311:
303:
787:
670:
480:
449:
423:
402:
380:
342:
321:
177:
133:
126:
49:
109:
706:
A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic
264:
211:
236:
194:
572:
235:
though, unless you care to add the appropriate sources that show otherwise.
476:
173:
501:
is an illegitimate guideline that most people do not even agree with.--
488:(not a real marraige proposal, or pick-up line for that matter). ;)
296:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Mielikki_(Forgotten_Realms)
827:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
816:- Has not established notability, which it must to be kept.
700:
but misguided. There is little real world content in this
375:
vote "delete" on this kind of material. b) If you aren't
288:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Rod_of_Seven_Parts
708:, but here the plot summary has become the topic. Only
105:
101:
97:
292:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Artemis
Entreri
704:, nor any real-world context, analysis or critism.
660:, particularly since a guideline can never trump a
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
837:). No further edits should be made to this page.
396:wanton AfDing even with the occasional "hit").
533:Note: Innerroads is a blocked sockpuppet, see
8:
132:removed without comment, so listing at AfD.
656:the depth of sources you are culling from
475:. Zahakiel, will you have my man-babies?
584:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
644:; it's obvious a heaping helping of
499:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (fiction)
24:
586:list of Game-related deletions
497:. Extremely notable. Anyways,
422:. Huh? What previous chat? --
1:
511:01:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
485:00:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
462:15:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
432:14:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
415:13:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
351:00:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
334:22:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
275:16:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
259:21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
245:21:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
222:20:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
203:19:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
182:19:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
161:16:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
142:15:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
821:18:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
800:16:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
717:15:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
683:17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
628:13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
596:13:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
576:01:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
564:02:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
552:00:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
439:- My apologies; it was in a
58:21:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
854:
730:reliable secondary sources
710:reliable secondary sources
610:reliable secondary sources
830:Please do not modify it.
168:or at least Redirect to
32:Please do not modify it.
559:RJH has added sources.
286:- Per my arguments at
170:Companions of the Hall
528:few or no other edits
530:outside this topic.
72:Bruenor Battlehammer
64:Bruenor Battlehammer
612:to demonstrate the
604:as this stub fails
373:always, invariably
752:the very articles
598:
589:
537:
531:
489:
845:
832:
797:
792:
791:
785:
680:
675:
674:
668:
590:
580:
547:
532:
513:
487:
459:
454:
453:
447:
412:
407:
406:
400:
331:
326:
325:
319:
131:
125:
113:
95:
34:
853:
852:
848:
847:
846:
844:
843:
842:
841:
835:deletion review
828:
818:Judgesurreal777
795:
789:
788:
783:
678:
672:
671:
666:
642:stock character
618:stock character
608:. There are no
571:per Edward321.
545:
457:
451:
450:
445:
410:
404:
403:
398:
329:
323:
322:
317:
129:
123:
86:
70:
67:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
851:
849:
840:
839:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
779:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
720:
719:
688:
687:
686:
685:
646:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
599:
578:
566:
554:
543:- Per above --
538:
492:
491:
490:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
280:
279:
278:
277:
247:
225:
224:
205:
184:
163:
120:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
850:
838:
836:
831:
825:
824:
823:
822:
819:
815:
801:
798:
793:
786:
780:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
753:
749:
748:controversial
745:
741:
736:
731:
727:
724:
723:
722:
721:
718:
715:
714:Gavin Collins
711:
707:
703:
699:
698:Fair Comments
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
684:
681:
676:
669:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
638:
634:
631:
630:
629:
626:
625:Gavin Collins
622:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
600:
597:
594:
593:Gavin Collins
587:
583:
579:
577:
574:
570:
567:
565:
562:
558:
555:
553:
550:
548:
542:
539:
536:
529:
525:
521:
517:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
493:
486:
482:
478:
474:
471:
463:
460:
455:
448:
442:
438:
435:
434:
433:
429:
425:
421:
418:
417:
416:
413:
408:
401:
395:
391:
387:
382:
378:
374:
369:
365:
361:
357:
354:
353:
352:
348:
344:
340:
337:
336:
335:
332:
327:
320:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
282:
281:
276:
272:
271:
266:
262:
261:
260:
256:
252:
248:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
226:
223:
219:
218:
213:
209:
206:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
185:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
162:
158:
154:
149:
146:
145:
144:
143:
139:
135:
128:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
829:
826:
813:
812:
751:
747:
739:
725:
701:
697:
653:
649:
632:
601:
581:
568:
556:
540:
494:
472:
441:previous AfD
436:
419:
393:
376:
372:
367:
364:WP:CONSENSUS
355:
338:
299:
283:
269:
231:Still fails
228:
216:
207:
186:
165:
147:
121:
46:No Consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
606:WP:NOT#PLOT
526:) has made
48:to delete.
614:notability
546:ZeWrestler
516:Innerroads
503:Innerroads
755:included.
561:Edward321
394:encourage
381:AFD Queue
251:Pete.Hurd
153:Pete.Hurd
790:Zahakiel
673:Zahakiel
650:requires
616:of this
524:contribs
452:Zahakiel
424:Mikeblas
420:Question
405:Zahakiel
343:Mikeblas
324:Zahakiel
134:Mikeblas
116:View log
50:Davewild
744:WP:FICT
702:article
658:WP:FICT
654:require
637:WP:STUB
633:Comment
473:Comment
368:reasons
339:Comment
308:WP:FICT
233:WP:FICT
229:Comment
191:WP:FICT
89:protect
84:history
814:Delete
662:policy
602:Delete
360:WP:WAX
189:fails
187:Delete
148:delete
93:delete
726:Reply
437:Reply
390:cruft
377:aware
356:Reply
237:RMHED
195:RMHED
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
740:best
735:WP:N
623:. --
582:Note
573:Rray
569:Keep
557:Keep
541:Keep
520:talk
507:talk
495:Keep
481:talk
428:talk
386:WP:N
362:and
347:talk
312:WP:N
306:and
304:WP:N
300:main
284:Keep
270:talk
255:talk
241:talk
217:talk
208:Keep
199:talk
178:talk
166:Keep
157:talk
138:talk
127:prod
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
588:.
535:SSP
477:BOZ
265:RJH
212:RJH
174:BOZ
114:– (
591:--
522:•
514:—
509:)
483:)
430:)
349:)
294:,
290:,
273:)
257:)
243:)
220:)
201:)
193:.
180:)
159:)
140:)
130:}}
124:{{
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
796:►
784:◄
733:(
679:►
667:◄
518:(
505:(
479:(
458:►
446:◄
426:(
411:►
399:◄
345:(
330:►
318:◄
267:(
253:(
239:(
214:(
197:(
176:(
155:(
136:(
118:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.