Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death knight

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. Canley (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Death knight

Death knight (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A RPG class which is not notable. This should be merged into a list of classes, or deleted. Fangz of Blood 15:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, this has a number of mentions in Dragon magazine, which in turn seems to have a nice stack of awards for an RPG magazine. Did you discuss other options with anyone else or ask if other sources are available? --Kizor 15:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remember that wikipedia is not a game guide. Plus these all these should be in a list. There is a lot more, but I don't feel like listing them all. Fangz of Blood 15:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Not to be overly nit-picky, but a Death Knight is not a class as you have described it. Web Warlock (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure I do, but there seems to have been a surprising amount of confusion lately over that "game guide" bit: As you see from that link, it's specifically about game guides, how-tos, advice. It says it allows descriptions. --Kizor 16:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Game guides go beyond advice. For example, an article listing the hit points of every monster in a game is game guide content, yet does not offer any advice. Pagrashtak 16:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Fangz of Blood 15:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - There are references and mythological antecedents in various stories. Given 24 hours I could find quite a few new references for it. Web Warlock (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Web Warlock. BOZ (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this stock character oustide of Dungeons & Dragons game guides.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You know. Every time you say that I come up with about 5-7 independent sources. Currently I getting ready to go over the works of Clark Ashton Smith who, if I remember correctly, had a Death Knight like figure in The Empire of the Necromancers and it was sited in other works as being an influence. Web Warlock (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And it would be nice if you could use terms like stock character correctly. Edward321 (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The term stock character describes this fictional character perfectly. For instance, the intro to this article describles him as "a death knight", rather than giving him a name. The name does not really make a difference as they are all interchangeable; you can refer to him as the "Black Knight", "Evil Knight" or "Dark Knight" (otherwise known as "Night Knight"). You will find lots of trivial sources on the internet mentioning the Death Knight, because when it comes to stock characters, one name fits all.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Just in case you haven't read it, this article is about a creature, NOT a character. So please pay attention--your refusal to do so is making you look bad.--Robbstrd (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• The use of the term "stock character" is irrelevant anyway, since being a stock character isn't a valid reason for deletion. Rray (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment That is debatable. There are over 2,600 stock characters listed by the publisher[1] which are used in Dungeons and Dragon games. Unless there are reliable secondary sources to demonstrate why this character has real-world notablity, I think this article is well covered on fansites and other game focused sites to be listed here. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Notability is the real issue, not whether or not this is a stock character. Some stock characters are notable; some are not. If you want to argue that being a stock character is a valid reason for deletion, you should bring that up on the talk page for the policy. Rray (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Here might be a good place to disuss the notabilty of this character. Other than making appearances in lots of game guides, what do you think give this stock character notablity? --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Multiple references to reliable sources indicate notability. See the references section in the article. Rray (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The sources provided at the time of writing are neither reliable secondary sources nor do they assert any notability; all of them refer to primary sources in which the stock character is mentioned. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I see multiple reliable secondary sources asserting notability. The consensus here and on the talk page of the article will determine the outcome at any rate. Rray (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment None of the references given provide any evidence of notability, nor do they assert any; they are primary sources that show that this stock character appears in many publications; none of them assert that the character is notable per se. For all of the 2,600 other characters, you will find similar sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I seriously doubt you have read any of these so your comment is little more than opinion or guesswork. Web Warlock (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Easy to say but difficult to prove. If you look at the references you have added, you can see that they support the content related to the primary sources; that is where the is an instance of a Death Knight, you have added a reference. However, we already know that stock characters will make appear many times in multiple games and books - this is not in dispute; what is the issue here is did the appearance amount to anything notable: was the character given an important role, for instance, or did he make an important speech. I think you have proven that this stock character exists in many fictional worlds, but not that he is notable per se in the real-world. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• You commented earlier that all of these are primary sources. That's incorrect; several of the sources listed are from secondary sources. White Dwarf magazine is one example. Rray (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Commment That reviewer says that the Death Knight is "one of the more interesting additions in the book" can hardly be classed as reliable secondary source. For starters, that is hardly an assertion of notability; secondly it is a passing mention of the character in a review about another subject althogether. I am afraid that your understanding of WP:RS and WP:FICT is sadly misplaced. What is needed is more than just a mention in a telephone directory; some analysis, context, critism, details of the characters origins, development. Instead there is long list of instances where the character has appeared in books. This stock character is going to pop up in lots of places, but outside of those sources, there is no notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• My understanding of policies here is fine. Most of the article I provide Keep opinions for are kept, so you might reassess your opinion. At any rate, I'd request that you comment on the issues related to the article rather than making things personal and condescendingly denigrating my understanding of policies here. This discussion is about whether or not this article should be deleted; it's not about whether or not I understand the policies and guidelines here. Thanks. Rray (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• More to the point Gavin your opinion here is only that, your opinion, not policy. And until you actually read the sources for notability I have put here it is at best an uninformed opinion. Web Warlock (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I admit that I am not a PhD in role-playing games, but I can differentiate between primary and secondary sources. For example, a (disputed) assertion has been made in the article that the Death Knight has "influences" on other games. I dispute this statement of fact as it is unsupported by any evidence. There may be other games with the a stock character of the same name, but using the same character is not the same as having a direct influence on the designers or creators of a game and none of the sources you have provide proves this. The sources you have provided are primary sources; if the creators of other games had been influenced by this Dungeons and Dragons character, they would have stated this explictly - you cannot imply influence with providing evidence of this link. I am begining to believe that you are hiding behind references and weasel words in order to disguise the lack of real-world notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - If you have issues with it, then do the research yourself to confrim or deny the claims here. Web Warlock (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Plenty of reasons on this. Firstly, the nomination doesn't give a real reason for deletion, it simply says "not notable" without telling us why it's not. Secondly, the article goes beyond game guide information (just because it's from a game doesn't mean it's game guide). Thirdly, all of Wikipedia policies appear to be followed. I simply cannot see a reason for deletion. -- Masterzora (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per Web Warlock and others. The existence of multiple reliable sources indicates notability. AfD isn't the appropriate venue to discuss a merge; that's what article talk pages are for. Rray (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Rework - What with all the "needs work!" templates at the head of that page, I would suggest someone sit down and address those concerns. If the article is still not worth keeping around at that time, scrap it. Howa0082 (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'll be doing exactly that tomorrow morning. Web Warlock (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Webwarlock. "Fangz" should read articles before putting them up for AfD--this article is about a creature, not a class--the infobox even says that.--Robbstrd (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. "Fangz" should probably stick to topics he knows something about, or at the very least bother to read the articles in question. Wikipedia works better that way. -- Poisonink (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Webwarlock, per Poisonink, per whomever you choose, really. As D&D monsters go, this is one of the more notable ones. Iquander (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per Webwarlock, Masterzora. Edward321 (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all the sources listed are TSR/WotC. Hence it fails WP:N and WP:RPG/N, unless third-party sources can be found. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have now added 16 inline citations. 3 were from the article before, 4 are from WotC/TSR with one of those detailing the Death Knight in the upcoming 4th Edition game (it was a featured article on the new game) and 9 are from third party independent publishers. This is just the information in my personal library. I am tracking down a reference that might indicate that the Death Knight was based in part on the draugr of myth and legend. Web Warlock (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep now there are sufficient third-party sources. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per multiple references. Also publication history & influences section add out of universe notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per Webwarlock and others.Shemeska (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the nominator should research what the article is about rather than jump to a conclusion about it, so based on the reason for deletion i say keep the article. also based on the fact that this entity is in many notable works, such as best selling novels as well as sourcebooks for the game itself, it is not obscure to be not notable. additional comment at the rate many of these notability tags are popping up, i could find thousands of things on Wikipedia that i have never heard of. would that mean they are not notable to everyone, or just myself? again i think the issue of notability needs to be addressed or explained to some people (including myself would be nice) before there is nothing left on Wikipedia at all, unless it is something known to everyone worldwide. sadly a site that could be used to provide much information on many subjects seems to be being castrated to only subjects that are popular or of worldwide media concern/coverage. information however is NOT limited to only what everyone knows, and a site like wikipedia should not be harmed that it cannot provide information on little thing that may be hard to find information anywhere else in this, what is it called? oh yes, the "Information Age". shadzar|Talk|contribs 00:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep article now establishes notability. Thanks go to webwarlock, rray and others. Good job! Hobit (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep article well referenced, well written and shows notability. The nominator and his sidekick are clearly out of their depth here--they make glaring factual mistakes in their statements and, which is more troubling, refuse to be corrected--the assumption of good will can only stretch so far. Freederick (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment – I have added a new reference today. This one was published on Tuesday, yes it is from Wizards, but it points to notability since the books talks about how they are using the Death Knight (complete with new art) in the new 4th Edition game. If the sales of the 3rd edition are any indication, then we can expect that nearly 3 million copies of the book with the new Death Knight (the Monster Manual) will be sold. I recommend that with this latest information, the article edits, the fact that the original AfD did not adequately address the article, and the overwhelming number of keep votes that this be upgraded to Snowball Keep. Web Warlock (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We have two votes for delete (including the nom), one "rework", and fourteen keeps. If that's not consensus, I don't know what is. BOZ (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The outcomes of AFDs are not determined by a vote count. An AFD with a deletion nomination rooted in policy and 20 keep votes that were against policy would be (properly) closed as delete. I'm not saying there isn't consensus to keep here, just saying that it doesn't come from sheer numbers. Pagrashtak 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I focused on the research, citations, and edits first and votes last. Web Warlock (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment was directed to BOZ. Pagrashtak 17:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I just wanted to make sure I understood. Web Warlock (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And, several of the Keep votes came as a result of WebWarlock's tireless efforts. BOZ (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

tireless then why am I so sleepy? ;) Thanks everyone else as well! I am just glad to help. Web Warlock (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad you did—good work WW. Pagrashtak 18:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - The article in its original form was of quite doubtful notability, but the sources added seem more than enough. Goochelaar (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2008 (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.