Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baelnorn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was Keep per withdrawn nomination (and continue to improve per discussion). Newyorkbrad 23:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Baelnorn
Fiction in a D&D setting, as with other entries by same editor, User:Elestar ThuranX 01:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- As much as I don't want to say it, keep. I managed to remove the made up bits from this article and the rest is actually salvageable. Stick a clean up tag on it, but it's not that bad with the Mary-Sues removed. Shimaspawn 01:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
In light of the clean-up, I'd rescind my Nomination. ThuranX 01:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - unsourced fancruft of an in-universe nature, no assertion of real world significance as required per WP:NOT. MER-C 08:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. A reasonably well referenced article on a standard D&D creature. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The article probably still needs a little cleaning, but as far as fictional D&D critters go, it's referenced in not just a bunch of rule books, but novels as well. Perhaps it may warrant a merge to a larger D&D/Faerûn-related article down the line, but deletion seems a bit much. (A quick glance.) Bitnine 16:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Could be seen as a fiction article and a violation of WP:NOT.Tellyaddict 17:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment why is this more of a fiction article than any of the Pokemon articles or video game character articles? There is a difference between articles about fiction and articles that are fiction. Shimaspawn 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The good Pokemon articles do attempt to talk about their characters above and beyond just what the character is capable of and plot line details. They also include some real world analysis or context and references outside of the fictional world. Dugwiki 18:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I can't disagree with your logic there. Shimaspawn 18:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The good Pokemon articles do attempt to talk about their characters above and beyond just what the character is capable of and plot line details. They also include some real world analysis or context and references outside of the fictional world. Dugwiki 18:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment why is this more of a fiction article than any of the Pokemon articles or video game character articles? There is a difference between articles about fiction and articles that are fiction. Shimaspawn 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete pending references and contextThe article currently suffers from two serious problems. The first is that it has no references to demonstrate that it's not original research. The second is that, as per the recommendations in WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:FICT, the article should provide verifiable information and analysis on the real-world context and importance of the subject. At the very least, you should provide some references to demonstrate that this monster isn't the equivalent of just a "minor character" in the core D&D fictional universe. The first problem is more serious than the second, but I'd probably want to see both issues dealt with to recommend keeping the article. Dugwiki
-
- Hm, as far as the OR goes, a reference like this may be able to help out a little. I've put some preliminary sourcing on the talk page and cleared up some copyrighted material as well. (Redacted self, no need to overflow this page.) Bitnine 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Bit. I think mentioning the real-world use of the monster in multiple novels outside just the game rules would probably help it establish some notability per WP:FICT. Information from the references you mention on the talk page of the article could be incorporated into the text to show that the creature was adapted for use by a variety of authors and doesn't just appear as a minor creature in a particular D&D rules book. Given those references, I'm changing my recommendation to Keep pending additional references, meaning I'll support keeping the article with the assumption that it will have sufficient sourcing in due course. Dugwiki 22:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, as far as the OR goes, a reference like this may be able to help out a little. I've put some preliminary sourcing on the talk page and cleared up some copyrighted material as well. (Redacted self, no need to overflow this page.) Bitnine 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and tag for cleanup per the cleanup by Shimaspawn. Also, the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. -- Black Falcon 03:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
