Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bregan D'aerthe
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 Redirect to Menzoberranzan. Interested editors may want to evaluate further if and what content is worthwile to merge. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bregan D'aerthe
Non-notable fictional character. Little is written about this chracter outside of its universe, so too few substantial secondary sources are available to write a sustainable, verifiable WikiPedia article on this subject. Mikeblas 16:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 16:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Of course, the nominator might want to read the article he's nominating, since the first line clearly indicates that it's a fictional group, as opposed to a fictional character. One could suspect a cut-and-paste nomination here. -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Question. Are nominations with typos inherently invalid? If so, let me know and I'll open another AfD for this article as the subject remains non-notable, despite my error. -- Mikeblas 02:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Procedural errors do not negate the intent of an action. Jay32183 05:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Question. Are nominations with typos inherently invalid? If so, let me know and I'll open another AfD for this article as the subject remains non-notable, despite my error. -- Mikeblas 02:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Menzoberranzan with some significant trimming and referencing. Pinball22 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- A Merge to Menzoberranzan would be adequate, I think. Also an admonition to Mikeblas to at least try to get the details of an article correct when nominating it for deletion. Powers T 23:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Menzoberranzan also has no secondary sources, merging solves nothing. Jay32183 01:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. A current lack of secondary sources doesn't necessarily mean that such sources don't exist... Menzoberranzan has appeared in sufficiently many books that it's likely to be sourceable. Pinball22 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- But it does mean that the article should be aggressively deleted, WP:PROVEIT. No sources in the article and no sources existing makes no difference to some one reading the article. If sources exist, go get them. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. Jay32183 01:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. A current lack of secondary sources doesn't necessarily mean that such sources don't exist... Menzoberranzan has appeared in sufficiently many books that it's likely to be sourceable. Pinball22 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Menzoberranzan also has no secondary sources, merging solves nothing. Jay32183 01:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Menzoberranzan as suggested above. Secondary sources are not necessary for every element of an otherwise referenced work, as primary sources (the texts themselves) do exist for the already-established topic. Merging accomplishes this without loss of information. ◄Zahakiel► 04:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- My point against the merger is that neither article has secondary sources. Both should be deleted, merging is a waste of time and effort. Jay32183 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- That is an issue for another AfD; as long as Menzoberranzan exists, this article is suitable for a merger with it. If you would like to add Menzoberranzan to this discussion, there are avenues for that, although you're likely going to run into a Faerun situation. Until and unless that happens, the merger proposal is quite valid. ◄Zahakiel► 05:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- No it isn't. Not all AFDs have to happen at once, and you need to learn to recognize what articles meet the requirements. You never merge articles when the result is something that will have to be deleted. The deletion of that article may not be up for discussion here, but the appropriateness of a merger is. The merge is inappropriate and a waste of time. The merger is simply an attempt to save content not worth saving. Jay32183 14:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you wish to instruct me in the art of AfDing, you'll need to cite some policy that says, "You never merge articles when the result is something that will have to be deleted," and then you also need to support that by showing me where your objective evidence is that this will even be the case. I've never seen such a statement. The "content not worth saving" comment is also simply your opinion, and one that has not been supported in the least by the precedent set by previous and frequent AfDs of this kind of material (and see a couple very recent examples here and here. While we aren't to keep articles just because others exist (i.e., WP:WAX) there is something to be said for repeated examples of consensus. So then, please do not confuse your current inclinations with the way things are done on this website; that, not mergers, not even AfDs, is a waste of energy. You assume one article "should be deleted" and then claim that merging this one into it will be a waste of time... that's an overt attempt to circumvent established process. ◄Zahakiel► 15:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Content not worth saving is not an opinion. There are zero reliable sources for real world context. By definition the content is not acceptable for Wikipedia. The only thing that matters in this discussion is whether there are reliable secondary sources to provide real world context. If there are, keep; if there aren't, delete. There aren't, so this article should be deleted. Jay32183 23:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- The statement "This article is not worth saving" is an opinion. I'm sorry if I somehow mis-spoke above or didn't make that clear enough. Now, you may think you're basing your opinion on facts, but it's an opinion, and one (as I said before) not currently supported by the majority of AfD contributing editors, including myself. Let's just leave it at that and see what happens in this case. ◄Zahakiel► 00:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- That is not an opinion. If you want this article saved you should not be contributing to Wikipedia. This article is in complete disregard for policy and guideline for no reason at all. You have no fact to back up anything your saying. There are no possible valid arguments for "keep" or "merge" because "unsourcable" is not a fixable issue. There are no sources for this or any article that it could be merged into. You also shouldn't be offended when people nominate article for AFD for failing inclusion criteria. "There are no sources but we should keep the article anyway" is what you're claiming, and it is the worst argument one can present in an AFD. Merging won't make this problem go away. The problem needs to be fixed, not brushed aside. Jay32183 03:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- The statement "This article is not worth saving" is an opinion. I'm sorry if I somehow mis-spoke above or didn't make that clear enough. Now, you may think you're basing your opinion on facts, but it's an opinion, and one (as I said before) not currently supported by the majority of AfD contributing editors, including myself. Let's just leave it at that and see what happens in this case. ◄Zahakiel► 00:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Content not worth saving is not an opinion. There are zero reliable sources for real world context. By definition the content is not acceptable for Wikipedia. The only thing that matters in this discussion is whether there are reliable secondary sources to provide real world context. If there are, keep; if there aren't, delete. There aren't, so this article should be deleted. Jay32183 23:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- That is an issue for another AfD; as long as Menzoberranzan exists, this article is suitable for a merger with it. If you would like to add Menzoberranzan to this discussion, there are avenues for that, although you're likely going to run into a Faerun situation. Until and unless that happens, the merger proposal is quite valid. ◄Zahakiel► 05:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- My point against the merger is that neither article has secondary sources. Both should be deleted, merging is a waste of time and effort. Jay32183 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per the guidelines in WP:FICT into Menzoberranzan. Individual character does not seem to have established independent notability; the setting, otoh, looks to have been mentioned enough in reviews that notability can be established by someone with enough subject knowledge and time to do so. —Quasirandom 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per almost everyone else here. Rray 00:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as there are no sensible reasons for keeping or merging. There are no primary sources that can be cited to verify the source of this article, so copying and pasting this article else where is just moving the problem of identifying the source of this article elsewhere. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability of this fictional group. Lastly, the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT; this suggests to me that this article would be better of at fancruft.net.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as fairly comprehensive article about aspect of notable game. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:56, 20 November 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.
