Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psilofyr

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 delete. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psilofyr

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

Self referencing Fancruft, with no context, real-world content or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Greyhawk pantheon, which is in desperate need of cleanup. Gavin Collins (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'd like to change my vote to Keep or Merge per Robbstrd below. BOZ (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. If Gavin was truly interested in "cleaning up" these articles, he'd work to improve them, rather than tagging and nominating them for deletion. Then again, perhaps he's more interested in being a dick. Prove us wrong, Gavin--put some effort into making something better for once.--Robbstrd (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I can understand your frustration, but I don't think we need to descend into name-calling. We should assume good faith about Gavin's motivations. Or, failing that, we should at least address the concerns raised instead of attacking the nominator. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If you go here, I think you'll get a better understanding of the situation. It isn't so much that Gavin tags & nominates articles for deletion, but that he does it at a rate that no one can keep up with (not to mention that he frequently fails to read the articles & so mistags them). He seems to think Wikipedia is on a time table, which it isn't. Many times he's been asked to take a break so those of us interested in these articles can take the time to review & improve them, but no such luck. It's easy to tag content--if Gavin actually took the time to create/improve some content, many of us would have a more favorable view of him.--Robbstrd (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Gavin is doing great things here by helping clean up Wikipedia. He should be commended for his actions with the biggest possible barnstar Pilotbob (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect - into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities as per BOZ. I am sure I could find enough information to keep this alive as it's own article it really belongs in the list, which itself should be expanded. Plus Gavin has no interest in improving articles, only deleting them. Otherwise he would have contributed something, which he has not. Web Warlock (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge Per Robbstrd, whose comments today are particularly insightful. :) Rray (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, article has no mention of real world notability. Although Gavin.collins may not be improving articles, he is improving Wikipedia by nominating pages like this for deletion. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    comment it is mentioned as being one of the 30 best adventures in *this* world. And Improving? I seriously doubt it. Web Warlock (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Without sources, what you say is unverified. We can delete this page, and you can put it back when you find sources. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I hate to say it but no-one who has argued 'keep' has proved that it's notable at all. Are the sources WP:RS and in-depth ones about this being in particular? If so, explain and mention them in this AfD for me please. If things don't belong in the wiki it's not wrong to send them to AfD. You might be annoyed because a lot of people don't understand what passes for notability criteria when it comes to sci-fi, games etc. You need to explain it to me, cos I'm a girl and not into these things.:)Merkinsmum 23:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of Greyhawk deities. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is clearly not notable in the real world. Pilotbob (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge as per WebWarlock. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per GentlemanGhost. This is pretty obscure. Hobit (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is pretty obscure. Fails WP:N and others. --Jack Merridew 10:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete extremely obscure. Even merging with Myconid entry seems pointless as every monster created for D&D does NOT need its own article. That is what the Monster Manuals are sold for, to get the details on specific monsters. Wikipedia should not remove the need for purchasing those books. For those things in the SRD/OGL then they should be looked up on the appropriate internet sites for those things. I do not feel the entire SRD should be replicated on Wikipedia. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That is the first sensible comment written by a RPG expert that made any sense about these articles. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
So he's an expert because he agrees with you, while everyone else is a fanatic? BOZ (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, what I want to know is if he understands why this is obscure, but Tiamat isn't. They are light-years apart, but a number of folks (who don't appear to know much about the subject) don't understand the difference. Hobit (talk) 20:14, 22 December 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.