Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huntsmen of Annuvin

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 Merge as suggested. Prodego talk 17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huntsmen of Annuvin

Huntsmen of Annuvin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable fictional group. Article is entirely plot summary of the group with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Huntsmen of Annuvin' -wikipedia" on Google returns mainly non-reliable fansites and forums and trivial mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - I was going to suggest merge to the novel's article The Chronicles of Prydain, but this seems to have been a fork of content. I don't know if Lloyd Alexander is a great enough author to have so much content written about him, though. Remain neutral for now, as I know large merges don't go over well here. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The books are wonderful and quite well-known, so informative and scholarly articles on them have a place on Wikipedia, but the plot summary content can go. SolidPlaid 00:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge I am the author of the article, and it was among the first articles I wrote. I am disappointed that it has been nominated as such, since I used an outside source, quoted the material, and tried to give it greater context. However, since I have become more familiar with WP policies, I am not sure it deserves an article all to itself. I would like to write an article on "Minor characters in the series" or some such thing, and merge the information here. Cbradshaw 03:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
comment - I can feel for you; your main article is very long and detailed, so I can see why you would want to fork out a large number of sub-articles. Maybe a better thing to do is merge as much as possible into the main article, wherever it can be part of a "Plot Summary" or "Analysis" section. There's nothing wrong with a very long main article, I think, and if the characters have importance to the plot, they should earn a mention in the main article anyway. But if you create one subarticle for "Minor Characters in the series", it may still end up at AfD unless there has been third-party works specifically addressing those minor characters. That's unfair to the amount of work you've done, but given where policy is today, it's they way it is. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
comment - As an example, the sense I get is, referencing LotR (cos at least I've read that), Wikipedia can have a stand-alone article on Sauron, or Tom Bombadil, or maybe even Merry and Pippin, as they've specifically been written about in third-party real-world sources; but an article on Arioch from the Michael Moorcock novels may not be warranted without any third-party sources (which I doubt there are, for Arioch anyway). I don't know where Lloyd Alexander falls within that continuum. Anyway, that's just one opinion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:07, 5 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.