Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetouched

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. Canley (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Planetouched

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

Non-notable neogolism. Article fails WP:FICT, WP:NOT#GUIDE and has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world significance. This term is a proprietary word used only in Dungeons & Dragons game guides and its associated publications. Gavin Collins (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment terms are not the same as neologisms; WP:NEO doesn't apply here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree; this isn't a neologism at all, it's an in-universe label for group of fictional people, the same as Decepticon or hobbit. No one is claiming that the term "planetouched" has significance beyond identifying the races to which it has been applied to in the D&D rules. Whether or not it fails WP:FICT, WP:NEO doesn't apply.Ig8887 (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Unlike Decepticons and Hobbits, Planetouched do not appear to be a fictional race per se, but are perhaps a Category of creatures - the article does not make this clear. It seems to have been derived from another made up word, extraplanar (existing in an alternative dimension?), and both of these terms appear to me to be a good example of neogolisms to me.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

*Delete per WP:N and/or WP:RPG/N; there's no independent coverage here, and I don't see why a third party would devote a non-trivial amount of space or time to coverage of the term. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - well...there is "Races of Renown - Aasimar and Tiefling (a Guidebook to the Planetouched)"[1] by Green Ronin. That is an entire book dedicated to them and uses the term in the title no less. There are others as well. That being said I am still largely neutral on this one. Web Warlock (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep then; don't merge. That's one source, and a second would bring it in line with WP:N. However, the creature type article doesn't have even that, and should probably go. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no objections to a merge as others have suggested. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I'm seeing five fairly trivial news articles, 34 books on amazon that get hits on the word, 5 of which aren't published by WoTC and one of which has the word in it's title. That said, the news articles are trivial references. Oh, 20,000 ghits. That's not a small number and indicates there may be notability here. Hobit (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Change to Merge per Webwarlock and BOZ. Hobit (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • And change again to keep. After reading the Outsider article and the planetouched article and thinking about it for a while, I think that parts of the outsider article should merge with the planetouched article instead. I'll be happy to do this if the planetouched article still exists after this afd. Hobit (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons)#Outsider. 02:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Web Warlock (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It's getting messy around here.  ;) BOZ (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hobit and Rell Canis. They are right--this article should serve as the base article into which various subarticles should be merged. And it does have news coverage, albeit modest, not to mention the Ghits. It would probably gain more references if subtypes like Tiefling and Aasimar were to be merged and redirected into it. Merge and redirect to Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons)#Outsider. Freederick (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep : I might understand if Aasimar, Tiefling and the like were merged into this article, but removing Planetouched would make the link between those articles disappear. Rell Canis (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Exactly. I think keeping planetouched and having the outsider article point to it makes a LOT more sense. Hobit (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It looks like it's heading towards a Merge or even Keep, at worst No Consensus. BOZ (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Per others here. Rray (talk) 14:40, 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.