285:
informative. Unless the intent is to remove, for example the "Characters" sections entirely from
Knowledge (XXG) articles, a certain amount of synthesis is unavoidable. The "Characters" section, however, should be trimmed to about 1/10th its length, removing commentary that is either quoted from the books, or is cute inventive language intended to sound as if it is. Examples: "the Bursar, a man whose idea of excitement was a soft-boiled egg" and "At UU, he fulfills the role of the one person in the organisation who knows what's going on and why it's happening and who's doing it, although he often wishes he didn't."
264:
remotely regular basis. Most of my work has consisted of merging smaller articles together to get their number down to a more manageable size. Finding secondary sources for every
Discworld article would be a Herculean task, and it's not one I have any interest in taking on alone. I have more important issues to deal with. So. Either delete Knowledge (XXG)'s entire Discworld domain or find those sources yourself. Discworld is the second best-selling fantasy series in the world after Harry Potter. There are bound to be plenty.
311:. A distinguishing feature of the Barlow article is that it provides references, but the references aren't especially encyclopedic. In one place, the actor playing the fictional character is quoted (shouldn't that be the writer or the director?) and in another reference it's a "Coronation Street spokesperson".
284:
I object to unencyclopedic, original research essay language, such as "The
University's gargoyles have taken on a life of their own (not that this is anything unusual for Discworld gargoyles in general)." But the article as a whole -- compared to others of its type in Wiki -- is fairly reasonable and
361:
Agree entirely with
Serendipodous. For all that the article lacks references it is neither noticeably inaccurate nor, by the standards of these things, unencyclopedic. If it were to be deleted then pound-to-a-penny a Pratchett fan would come along within days and start an UU article that wouldn't
314:
I don't know how many TV shows are well-heeled enough to have a spokesperson, and in lieu of them, who is reliable? A similar problem pertains to books. Who besides the author is a reliable reference? And if the author won't talk -- or is dead -- would that mean there are no reliable references? In
202:
Last time I poked around the article, it was a well-written piece on a fictional piece of real-estate that his been an important part of about a dozen books (at least). And a semi-important part in even more books. Heck, it's even the setting for a half-non-fictional book (The
Science of Discworld)
263:
on this. There are literally scores of
Discworld-related articles on Knowledge (XXG), almost none of which have 3rd party citations. Most of them were created early in Knowledge (XXG)'s evolution before notability guidelines had solidified. However, I am the only person who edits them on an even
221:
Article is flawed but deletion is not the answer. It could possibly be reformatted as a list of
Characters. The jokey writing style of Discworld makes it hard to describe anything except in its own fictional rather silly terms. Direct quotes need to be used a bit more for some of the unavoidably
156:
222:
silly descriptions, more specific citations to each book and page references would help raise the quality too. Deletion is entirely inappropriate, the article needs work not removal. --
117:
150:
312:
304:
90:
85:
94:
187:
The entire article is plot and original research. This article is a mess, and I don't see any way to fix it. 34k bytes and no references.
271:
77:
17:
308:
171:
138:
405:
36:
379:
major plot element in very noitable series of fictions. If the fictions were less important, I;d look for a merge.
320:
290:
132:
300:
404:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
390:
371:
350:
324:
294:
279:
249:
231:
212:
196:
59:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
128:
315:
terms of outright deletion for lack of being "savable", I'd vote for the
Animorphs article, first. Regards,
273:
81:
178:
367:
316:
286:
260:
164:
333:
346:
266:
245:
192:
144:
227:
73:
65:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
363:
208:
236:
There must be reliable third party sources covering the this topic in order for it to pass
55:
237:
386:
342:
241:
188:
223:
111:
204:
50:
381:
336:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
398:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
107:
103:
99:
163:
341:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
177:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
408:). No further edits should be made to this page.
240:. Just citing to the book itself isn't enough.--
8:
305:List_of_characters_from_Coronation_Street
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
299:P.S. Also, Blargh29, compare with
24:
309:Peter_Barlow_(Coronation_Street)
303:. And also compare the sterile
1:
391:21:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
372:04:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
351:00:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
325:19:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
295:18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
280:09:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
250:13:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
232:09:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
213:04:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
197:22:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
60:17:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
301:List_of_species_(Animorphs)
425:
401:Please do not modify it.
362:be 10% as good as this.
32:Please do not modify it.
48:. leaning towards keep
259:I'm going to call
44:The result was
353:
74:Unseen University
66:Unseen University
416:
403:
340:
338:
317:Piano non troppo
307:with the linked
287:Piano non troppo
276:
269:
182:
181:
167:
115:
97:
34:
424:
423:
419:
418:
417:
415:
414:
413:
412:
406:deletion review
399:
331:
274:
267:
124:
88:
72:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
422:
420:
411:
410:
394:
393:
374:
355:
354:
339:
328:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
216:
215:
185:
184:
121:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
421:
409:
407:
402:
396:
395:
392:
388:
384:
383:
378:
375:
373:
369:
365:
360:
357:
356:
352:
348:
344:
337:
335:
330:
329:
327:
326:
322:
318:
313:
310:
306:
302:
297:
296:
292:
288:
282:
281:
278:
277:
272:
270:
262:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
234:
233:
229:
225:
220:
219:
218:
217:
214:
210:
206:
201:
200:
199:
198:
194:
190:
180:
176:
173:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
130:
127:
126:Find sources:
122:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
400:
397:
380:
376:
358:
332:
298:
283:
265:
258:
186:
174:
168:
160:
153:
147:
141:
135:
125:
49:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
364:Declan Clam
151:free images
261:WP:SOFIXIT
343:Tim Song
334:Relisted
242:Blargh29
189:Blargh29
118:View log
268:Serendi
224:Horkana
157:WP refs
145:scholar
91:protect
86:history
205:Lots42
129:Google
95:delete
387:talk
172:JSTOR
133:books
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
377:Keep
368:talk
359:Keep
347:talk
321:talk
291:talk
246:talk
238:WP:N
228:talk
209:talk
193:talk
165:FENS
139:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
56:talk
51:Cirt
382:DGG
275:ous
179:TWL
116:– (
389:)
370:)
349:)
323:)
293:)
248:)
230:)
211:)
195:)
159:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
58:)
385:(
366:(
345:(
319:(
289:(
244:(
226:(
207:(
191:(
183:)
175:·
169:·
161:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
136:·
131:(
123:(
120:)
114:)
76:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.