Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sword of Truth locations

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 all. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sword of Truth locations

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

Fire Spring (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hagen Woods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hawker's Trail (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Horner's Mill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pendisan Reach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Skow Swamp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Southaven (Sword of Truth) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Trunt Lake (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ven Forest (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Here are ten articles, all about locations mentioned in the fantasy novel Wizard's First Rule, the first book in The Sword of Truth series. All of them are trivial - I don't believe any of them are mentioned in the following books. In fact, most of them are only mentioned in passing in Wizard's First Rule. A number of them, such as Horner's Mill, quote directly and copiously from the novel without attribution: here's the source (pages 375-380 or so) for most of that article's text. Furthermore, all of these articles describe their topics from a fully in-universe standpoint; there's no consideration of what relevance these locations have to the real world, and there is unlikely to be any such improvement, primarily because these articles have no such relevance. Every single one of them describes a "throwaway" setting which is used once and discarded.

There are a lot more articles like this one, as observed by Pete.Hurd in this AfD. I'll be opening further AfDs as appropriate. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete fiction cruft, no encyclopedic content in any of these. Note, that I came across one, or two articles in collecting the list I posted in the Confessor AfD which did attempt to make an encyclopedic analysis of the topic of the article (I excluded them from the list I posted), none of these did. IMHO, the articles which discuss themes and other aspects of a notable import within the body of fiction ought to be merged into a very small number of articles. I havn't checked to see how many of the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sword_of_Truth are still active participants, but perhaps their involvement ought to be actively solicited once the extreme cruft has been trimmed. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  Note also, there is a Sword of Truth wiki (with 939 articles!?!), it's not like the people fascinated by this fictional world have no other venue for their creative energy. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, the SoT WikiProject appears to be inactive, with no discussion activity since February or so. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  I've looked over the contributions of all users listed as members of the wikiproject on the project page, or members of Category:WikiProject Sword of Truth participants, see comments on talk page for this AfD for the non-exciting details if you're really bored. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Locations, weapons, or other plot elements receiving passing reference in a fictional work would need to satisfy WP:N for stand-alone articles to be justified. These appear to lack such substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources. To take a fictional work and create separate articles for every thing and every event in it is an admirable show of devotion, but amounts to "fanspew." Edison (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per Edison, these are not independently notable, therefore they should not exist in separate articles. As per the nomination, they are entirely in-universe and arguably copyvios - therefore they should not be merged, just deleted. Hal peridol (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all as fail WP:NOT#PLOT, & WP:FICT.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - All lack notability and referencing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all These articles belong on a site dedicated to the Sword of Truth universe; they do not belong on Wikipedia. They have no RL notability. The Sword of Truth wiki is the proper place for them. Also, there seems to be a serious copyvio problem with some of these entries. Freederick (talk) 13:41, 23 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.