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 no consensus. This article does not meet notability criteria and thus has a serious problem. At the same time, numerous editors have expressed their opinion that this is an exceptional case where the GNG is insufficient as a test of notability and their opinions cannot be discounted here. Please note that this "no consensus" closure is not an endoresement of the status quo and interested editors should pursue a proper closure to the broader question of what the fate of this information is, whether that be through further researching and the addition of new sources, through the merging of this and similar "staple modern fantasy creatures" into a single article, or another solution. If the article's failing of current guidelines and/or policies is not remedied, there is no prejudice against a renomination in the near future. Shereth 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snotling[edit]

Snotling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of the plot of various Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 book and game plot sections. It is therefore pure duplication, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how does this demonstrate notability (as defined by WP)? --Craw-daddy | T | 14:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No verification has taken place with this topic, no reliable sources presented, as usual it's a keep vote because....well, we just don't ever vote for deletion, regardless of a topics total lack of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have argued to and even nominated to delete over fifty articles. I typed in "snotling" on Google Books. A word that gets multiple hits is sufficient verifiable (after all, it's books, not just websites) and notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, how many of those books were published by companies other than Games Workshop, BL Publishing or other companies owned by GW? -- JediLofty UserTalk 08:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more relevant question in this case might be, how many of these given in the linked search deal with the subject of the article in question? One of them has a comment to the effect "That guy in the Games Workshop tee shirt looked like a snotling, one of the figures made by Games Workshop." How is this substantial coverage? The others deal with Jewish/Yiddish poetry (getting exactly *one* hit for the word "snotling" in a poem), and one gets a hit because apparently there's a baseball player by the name of Chris Snotling, and hence the hit is on the Beckett price guide to baseball cards. So again, how many of these deal with the subjecct of this article? --Craw-daddy | T | 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would be mistaken, as there is only one reference, and it doesn't establish notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google books shows more than one reference. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which have nothing at all to do with the article under discussion. For example, how does a baseball player named Chris Snotling have any bearing on a fictional creature called a Snotling???? How does a poem that uses the word Snotling once have any bearing on the subject of this article (which is a fictional race in a fantasy game from a game puclisher??? --Craw-daddy | T | 17:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They demonstrate that the term is one that at worst we can use to construct a disambugation page covering these various usages. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop. The "references" (using the word loosely) in that Google books search are the very definition of "insubstantial".
  1. This one gives us "He looked like on of those Games Workshop creatures. A snotling. ... -- he looked like a snotling hedgehog with alopecia". And that's it.
  2. In this one we seem to find "A snotling peeked out from under her father's plate. Harmony watched in dread as her father cut into his strawberry ..." and "Maybe the snotling was trying to dig out from under the biscuit. If she could just squish it back down..." and nothing more.
  3. Here, here, and here we find the use of the word "snotling" exactly once in a poem (surprise, surprise, it's the same poem in three different books). So a single word in a 378 page book, or a 471 book (and another single word in a book of unknown page length). Pretty substantial, isn't it?
  4. This book also seems to have this word appear exactly once in it.
  5. Another book gives us " 'I did not hit you, you snotling' " as the sum total of its use of the word.
  6. We again find the word exactly once here and, though it's hard to tell from the online print source, it seems to be someone's name in a paper referenced in these conference proceedings.
  7. Finally, the last of the nine hits on the Google Book search is the Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide with, apparently, a baseball player by the name of Chris Snotling (I think). So no relevance to the subject of this article.
In other words, in no way does this constitute "substantial coverage" and claiming so is misleading and disingenuous. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are multiple references in published books that constitute substantial coverage of the word "snotling" in some capacity and saying they aren't is misleading and disingenuous. I am arguing that the article should not be redlinked as the word and its use is verifiable in some capacity whether it's the contents of the article or for a dramatic rewrite of the article. I see nothing to convince me that we can't use these sources to have some kind of article on "snotling" whatever that may be. It's not a word a wikipedian just made up. And even in the context used here, they are verfiable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those should go, too, right? They are just as invalid as snotlings are. Just go to Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures and PROD them all, with this debate as jurisprudence. It wouldn't be fair to keep those. Let's at least be consistent. Stijndon (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they should all stay. There's no legitimate reason why a paperless encyclopedia would not at worst redirect without deleting these articles. Don't dwell on the disputed and subjective concept of notability. If at worst, WP:IGNOREALLRULES, as the most important thing is for us to be a comprehensive reference guide that gives our community of readers and editors what it wants. As such outright deleting this verifiable article that appears in various incarnations that several editors clearly believe is notable (something that has diverse use, receives multiple keep arguments, and can be verified is notable by any logical standard anyway) would hinder our ability to improve Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they should stay. One of the coolest things about wikipedia is being able to read up on almost any random, valid topic! Stijndon (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Now that the relevant projects are finally serious about respecting the encyclopedia's standards for notability, I expect that those listed which don't have significant coverage in independent third-party sources will gradually be removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Isn't the fact that loads of people feel the urge to post pictures of their snotlings on the web a form of notability? This is really a question, not some attempt to make a point. I would guess it is - so why isn't it? Stijndon (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is to any reasonable person. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Note to self: Maybe I'm not "reasonable"...) I think it's really more vanity/showing off (in a sense), along the lines of "Look at these miniatures I've painted, aren't they swell!" It's not so much that they are pictures of snotlings, or any other creature/beast/man/tank/spaceship/etc, but people showing their painting skills that might happen to be on those models (maybe they *like* the models, but that's immaterial). Some of these types of postings are really "how-to" guides, i.e. "here's how I painted my figures" and are instructional material on painting techniques. There are plenty of "how-to" guides about how to build your own scenery for wargames (with plenty of accompanying pictures), but do articles about how to build bombed-out buildings or tank traps contribute to notability for "Ruins" or "Tank traps"? (And, of course, you should filter out all of the eBay (and other auction) listings as those don't "count" for notability as obviously people display their pictures to flog their wares.) Of course this is my opinion and yours may vary. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So how can any modern fictional thing now be notable? Is there any justification for an article on warhammer at all? Its article is a mix of blatant advertising (wrong), how to play (WP:not-a-manual) and copyright infringement, filled up with non-notable things. I find it flabbergasting that an article on snotlings is so strongly opposed, whereas it is obvious that a large group of people may eventually want to read it ("Oh look, it's linked! Let's check it out real quick." And I meant the cocky painters that wanted to show off their mad skills by accidentally having painted a snotling instead of something impressive.) Doesn't "suitable for a specialised encyclopedia" mean anything? I thought that was one of the general includability-guidelines. Where do you draw this line? somewhere above snotlings, obviously, though I do not concur. Stijndon (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry as given that numerous editors and readers have been working on and reading this article since 2004 coupled with the many keep "votes" in this discussion, it is fairly clear that the actual community consensus is to keep as a handful of deletes in one five day discussion does not reflect the much longer community attitude toward this article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You draw the line, obviously, at subjects which do not have significant coverage in independent third-party sources. Warhammer Fantasy Battle has oodles of these. Snotling does not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had rather draw the line at something that cannot be verified anymore. It is obvious that snotlings "exist," and not only are they suitable material for specialised encyclopediae, they're even published in one. And yes, this was published by the copyrightholders of snotlings, but does that matter? I would gladly PROD anything that seems trivial and cannot be verified, like some obscure musical genre or some aspiring actress's vanity page. But snotlings can so be verified. What is the point in deleting them? Is there a point? At first I wanted to put the {user=deletionist} thing on my page, but this debate makes me refrain from that. Stijndon (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where individual editors would rather draw the line is beside the point, Le Grand Roi's arguments aside. Of course it matters that the only place a non-trivial account of the subject has been posted is in an "encyclopedia" commissioned by the copyright holders: they make money out of selling the miniatures, so it's in their business to cover them extensively. However, if no other source has done so then they evidently are not important to the world at large. The line is not "does it exist", the line is "has it been covered in a non-trivial way by a reasonable number of independent third-party sources". This hasn't. Arguments which fail to address this shortcoming are bogus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are all the non-Games Workshop google images not independent sources? Oh wait, those were posted by painters looking to make a buck by showing off their painting skillz. And the encyclopedia only contained snotlings to further milk the cashcow that they obviously are. Those arguments are so poor! It looks like all sources are getting lumped in the "unimportant" "not notable" or "blatant advertisement" categories, and all keepers are "individual editors who've misdrawn their lines." Nice. Stijndon (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason all sources are being lumped into these categories is because they are. Think about it - Games Workshop sell millions of miniatures every year. If the simple ownership and display of these miniatures in sufficient numbers is an indicator of notability, that basically means any GW miniature is worthy of an article. This is definitely not the current consensus of the project. There is nothing to be said about the subject of the snotling which isn't game-guide or in-universe, which accounts for the complete lack of sourcing, and as such a real-world encyclopedia shouldn't have an article on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that Wikipedia should only have non-specialised articles on general stuff. Stijndon (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. It's the consensus of the project. The place to change that is not across random AfD decisions, even if it seems likely that the extended opening of this one is going to result in a no-consensus decision. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really the consensus of the project. If it was thousands of editors would not create, work on, come here to read, and/or argue to keep these articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Of course you know that zero independent sources does not always apply. Go read up on Taxation in the United States and its sources are all written by the IRS. Hardly independent. The argument about lack of independent sources has been rehashed a lot here, and some of us keep feeling that it doesn't apply. It's just some plot points is another argument we hear a lot. Now go read any article on any minor Harry Potter character and not only is it just a bunch of plot points, it's also purely sourced out of books from the same publisher. I think that snotlings are just getting a huge voting-trend against them that they do not deserve. It's a relatively well-written article, it's verifiable, and to some sub-population it is notable. And there are sources... Horribly pandering, flogging, blatantly advertising sources of people trying to either sell little snotling statues or show off their painting skills. For real? I would think those were acceptable here. Stijndon (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taxation in the United States has over twenty good references and most of them aren't, in fact, written by the IRS. House-elf isn't a particularly good example of a keepworthy article, but that's not a great argument. We do not have a different level of notability for fiction than we do for other content, no matter how much some editors believe we should, and we should use the policies that have consensus across the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how much some editors don't want to work on certain articles or don't like them, isn't reason why those who do can't or shouldn't. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only "elsewhere" the race has appeared is in other Games Workshop properties. The word "snotling" is a trademark of Games Workshop. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even its use there is sufficient for keeping in some manner or other. I don't think we'd get much opposition for a compromise merge and redirect if it came down to it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:26, 17 August 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.
More