Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avariel
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/redirect to Elf (Dungeons & Dragons). Keilana|Parlez ici 02:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Avariel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons race/monster. No evidence of third party coverage, though they have appeared in Dungeons & Dragons video/computer games, and are an elven subrace often mentioned. As such, they deserve a mention on the main elf article, which they already have. As such, no merge is needed (unless someone wants to expand the avriel mention in the main article). Worth mentioning I removed a huge copyvio from this article just before nominating it. Probably not worth mentioning that this is my favourite race from my favourite supplement. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Elf (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per BOZ. shadzar-talk 23:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable article with no out-of-universe coverage. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per BOZ. Makes sense to list subraces/variants of otherwise notable race in one article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Merge and redirect to Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)#Avariel in the Forgotten Realms. There's sufficient coverage to support inclusion in that page, but not in an article of their own. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons. Plus, referenced article, so passes Notability and Verifiability guidelines. Even if we were to merge, we would still need to keep this article and redirect it per the GFDL. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Appearance in major franchise supplies both notability and reliable sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't. Where are these reliable sources of which you speak? J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it does. The game and various D&D encyclopedias are reliable sources and have already been linked to from Amazon.com. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in terms of determining notability. From that point of view, reliable sources have to be third party. First party sources may be used sparingly to reference certain information, but are unrelated to notability. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of encyclopedic notability for a sub-article, primary sources are perfectly acceptable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that lists of characters are good, that's what the project is working on at the moment. However, I do not agree that individual articles for characters (or, in this case, monsters/races) are good, unless they have displayed independent notability. That is what this article is- a race from a game, worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia, but not worthy of its own article. We're effectively doing what was done with Pokémon articles- the notable ones can stay, but the masses that have no real significance can all be merged into lists. J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If a list is being made, though, with mergers in mind, then we should redirect the article to that list and if we ever do redirect something, I see no reason why the edit history should not be included. Part of what I don't like about removing edit histories also has to do with RfAs. It is incredibly frustrating when looking at a candidate's edit history, not being able to see deleted contribs which could tell one a good deal more about the candidate's edit history. Thus, if there's even a minor justification for redirecting an article, I think it best that we do so as there are others positives to be gained for the community at large for doing so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that lists of characters are good, that's what the project is working on at the moment. However, I do not agree that individual articles for characters (or, in this case, monsters/races) are good, unless they have displayed independent notability. That is what this article is- a race from a game, worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia, but not worthy of its own article. We're effectively doing what was done with Pokémon articles- the notable ones can stay, but the masses that have no real significance can all be merged into lists. J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of encyclopedic notability for a sub-article, primary sources are perfectly acceptable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in terms of determining notability. From that point of view, reliable sources have to be third party. First party sources may be used sparingly to reference certain information, but are unrelated to notability. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it does. The game and various D&D encyclopedias are reliable sources and have already been linked to from Amazon.com. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't. Where are these reliable sources of which you speak? J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Appearance in major franchise supplies both notability and reliable sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ravichandar 13:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)-Ravichandar 13:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears in multiple texts from multiple media - not easily merged in, and if all similar articles were merged in it would be a train wreck. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging all of it in is a bad idea, obviously. But the avariel is already mentioned at the elf article. It is undeniable that it has appeared in multiple places, but that doesn't change the fact that there are no third party sources. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see that as a major problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You fail to see how the lack of third party sources is a problem? So we should have an article on every fictional character, race, monster, planet, spaceship, everything, ever? And if not, why do you believe we should treat this one any differently? J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the ones that appear in multiple media and series, yes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You fail to see how the lack of third party sources is a problem? So we should have an article on every fictional character, race, monster, planet, spaceship, everything, ever? And if not, why do you believe we should treat this one any differently? J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see that as a major problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging all of it in is a bad idea, obviously. But the avariel is already mentioned at the elf article. It is undeniable that it has appeared in multiple places, but that doesn't change the fact that there are no third party sources. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- all i see is D&D books where they are nmentioned. even the other media section is D&D games. winged elves are a neat idea, but but this name Avariel they are nothing special. just a different type of elf and even the article contains nothing more to suggest otherwise. they could easily be included in the elf article without crowding it. these subraces are still just an offshoot. a rose is a rose by any other name... shadzar-talk 23:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- D&D casts a pretty wide net. Certainly they have appeared in numerous D&D-related media. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- all i see is D&D books where they are nmentioned. even the other media section is D&D games. winged elves are a neat idea, but but this name Avariel they are nothing special. just a different type of elf and even the article contains nothing more to suggest otherwise. they could easily be included in the elf article without crowding it. these subraces are still just an offshoot. a rose is a rose by any other name... shadzar-talk 23:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.