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. After setting aside the opinion by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, which addresses only the notability of the work(s) of fiction this is a part of, rather than the notability of this specific element, we're left with only one useable "keep" opinion. Sandstein 11:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camberian Council

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG via [1], [2], [3], and [4] (although I wonder if that last one might not include some Wikipedia text itself). Not a ton, but that's about 5 minutes of Googling, without me having any of the offline reference works likely to cover such a fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it dozens of times before, and I'll say it dozens of times more: that is not notability. I think you know how it works, but pretend you don't and hope nobody will actually look at your links when you do this. When something is talking about a fictional series and mentions something in direct relation to the plot, that is not and will never be an indication of notability. And I certainly don't know why you would think an edited Wikipedia mirror would be suitable at all. TTN (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and I've told you I don't know how many times that your understanding of notability is incorrect. You know what the real difference between you and me is, though? I understand the topics I comment upon. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Your sources do not fulfill that. Please justify how they could possibly be used in an article when they have no context. TTN (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - TTN is correct. I don't really like deletion, but if that's all you could find, I think this is clearly non-notable as those are all trivial mentions.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 02:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An element from a fictional series spanning a score of books and running for nearly 50 years. Even a cursory review of ISFDB listings would show a significant quantity of reviews and criticism of the series. There's even running, right now at tor.com, an extensive analysis of the series and its characters (more than a year of weekly installments, and not even half done!) by the notable writer/academic Judith Tarr, which itself cites commentary on the series by Ursula LeGuin. Since the nominator has admitted their practice of noncompliance with WP:BEFORE, their opinion should be given little or no weight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above has nothing to do with the nomination. The series being popular and long-running has no direct correlation with the plot element's notability. TTN (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your usual deceptive selective quoting. The series' long history and established popularity has led to an extensive body of commentary, which you never never bother to check (and often flaunt your misbehaviour). Since you don't bother to review the easy-to-find potential sources, your opinions on notability are, by your own admission, uninformed and should carry no weight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That still has nothing to do with the nomination. I honestly don't get why everything has to be a battle with you. You have no idea how long spent looking for sources. It could have been three hours, three minutes, or not at all, but you're spinning a false narrative to suit your own needs. People like you and Jclemens seem to have put together some kind of idea that what I'm doing is wrong, so you either wikilawyer or dance around the issue instead of just addressing the claim of notability. The topic is either notable or not notable, so prove it if you think it is notable. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and if I'm right, the topic will be removed now or in a future AfD if notability is not established. TTN (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective quoting is not deceptive, it simply saves room and emphasizes the main point being made by the user. Let's get along and disagree civilly. Keep up your good work TTN, you're very beneficial to wikipedia. Longevitydude (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I directly associated the length and popularity of the series with the large body of commentary it's generated, and which the nominator acknowledges a practice of ignoring, your argument makes no sense whatever. See WP:BEFORE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about the Camberian Council, not the series where it comes from, so I would have to agree with TTN that your argument isn't quite germane.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 02:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThese horrendous articles about characters would be better served merged together. Longevitydude (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with a banned user.
[Comment of a banned user.] I think you're confusing trolling with someone being overly angry about a non-compliant series of articles being removed from the site. TTN (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] [Comment of a banned user.] It's called clean up and keeping standards. The removal of unnecessary pages allows for the main topics to receive the proper attention they need. Taking D&D as an example, they have hundreds of Wikia-tier fancruft articles, while the 20-30 articles with potential sit in the same useless state. Once all the cruft is gone, there will be more incentive to improve the pages. The same goes for something like Transformers, which is a horrid mess of hundreds of articles. There are probably only five of them that actually need articles, and two of five could likely be FA material if given proper attention. TTN (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] [Comment of a banned user.] This is not Wikia. Interest in a topic is irrelevant. This site has particular standards, so please read up on them before commenting on something like this. TTN (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] [Comment of a banned user.] That's a nonsense response by someone who has no argument. I find it fun to clean up junk. Slowly watching the categories deplete to a reasonable state is interesting. I actively admin a Wikia wiki. I've probably made at least eight hundred articles there, but I understand that not one of those articles belongs here. TTN (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] [Comment of a banned user.] Please, no personal attacks. I think TTN knows what he's talking about and even if you don't agree you need to treat him with respect and not make faithless accusations against other users. If you think he's doing something wrong I'd recommend bringing this up with a wikipedia arbitrator, but only if you think he's really doing something that seriously violates wikipedia policy. Longevitydude (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] [Comment of a banned user.] Please don't compare afds to raping and eating people, it's not at all the same thing. Longevitydude (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] [Comment of a banned user.] I used to feel the same way about people who deleted supercentenarian articles. The fact is like gerontology, the information on these fictional characters won't be lost forever if wikipedia deletes them. Supercentenarians are still found on gerontology wiki, well these articles can still be found on battlestar or Dungens and dragons or what ever wiki. I understand your frustration, but sometimes it's best not to think more of something than it really is. Thank you for your passion, you remind me of me a few years ago. Just look at how I acted on the Bob Taggart article's first afd, but guess what, it's on the gerontology wiki so the information I enjoy is still somewhere to be found as will information on any articles TTN gets deleted. TTN to you is what Canadian Paul was to me, but he's actually a very smart guy who disagrees with me on certain topics. TTN is likewise just someone you strongly disagree with. Longevitydude (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] [Comment of a banned user.]

Discussion with a banned user.

[Comment of a banned user.]

I think you're confusing trolling with someone being overly angry about a non-compliant series of articles being removed from the site. TTN (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- [Comment of a banned user.]
  - It's called clean up and keeping standards. The removal of unnecessary pages allows for the main topics to receive the proper attention they need. Taking D&D as an example, they have hundreds of Wikia-tier fancruft articles, while the 20-30 articles with potential sit in the same useless state. Once all the cruft is gone, there will be more incentive to improve the pages. The same goes for something like Transformers, which is a horrid mess of hundreds of articles. There are probably only five of them that actually need articles, and two of five could likely be FA material if given proper attention. TTN (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - [Comment of a banned user.]
      - This is not Wikia. Interest in a topic is irrelevant. This site has particular standards, so please read up on them before commenting on something like this. TTN (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        [Comment of a banned user.]
        That's a nonsense response by someone who has no argument. I find it fun to clean up junk. Slowly watching the categories deplete to a reasonable state is interesting. I actively admin a Wikia wiki. I've probably made at least eight hundred articles there, but I understand that not one of those articles belongs here. TTN (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        [Comment of a banned user.]
        Please, no personal attacks. I think TTN knows what he's talking about and even if you don't agree you need to treat him with respect and not make faithless accusations against other users. If you think he's doing something wrong I'd recommend bringing this up with a wikipedia arbitrator, but only if you think he's really doing something that seriously violates wikipedia policy. Longevitydude (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        [Comment of a banned user.]
        Please don't compare afds to raping and eating people, it's not at all the same thing. Longevitydude (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        [Comment of a banned user.]
        I used to feel the same way about people who deleted supercentenarian articles. The fact is like gerontology, the information on these fictional characters won't be lost forever if wikipedia deletes them. Supercentenarians are still found on gerontology wiki, well these articles can still be found on battlestar or Dungens and dragons or what ever wiki. I understand your frustration, but sometimes it's best not to think more of something than it really is. Thank you for your passion, you remind me of me a few years ago. Just look at how I acted on the Bob Taggart article's first afd, but guess what, it's on the gerontology wiki so the information I enjoy is still somewhere to be found as will information on any articles TTN gets deleted. TTN to you is what Canadian Paul was to me, but he's actually a very smart guy who disagrees with me on certain topics. TTN is likewise just someone you strongly disagree with. Longevitydude (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        [Comment of a banned user.]

Delete No sources to indicate notability. Keep arguments do not really address policy-based reasons for inclusion, except for Jclemens, and I don't think his sources indicate notability quite well enough.Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 02:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, no actually intelligent or fact-based reason for deletion has been presented or even exist, especially with such published sources as this proving notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.201.254 (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
That's the fictional book that the Council is from, 24. It's a primary source. It doesn't count.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 03:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps Merge to Deryni. The group has no real sources that establish any sort of independent notability. The sources brought up by Jclemens are nothing but very brief plot summaries, which do nothing to establish notability. While I think the article should definitely not be left as a stand alone article, I would not be opposed if people wanted to merge it into the main article on the Deryni. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is pretty poorly referenced, so I don't think any of its present content is worthy of retention with a merge.Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 22:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the above arguments for Keep have the scent of special pleading from a fandom. There is nothing in the way of WP:RS in the article and the sources cited above are nothing more than plot summaries and passing mentions in annotated bibliographies. That is not significant coverage. Notability of fictional plot elements requires recognition beyond "this exists in this author's popular books." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:02, 18 January 2017 (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.