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. Consensus seems to be split between keeping and merging. Clearly no consensus for delete here though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obad-Hai

Obad-Hai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This Dungeons & Dragons article fails our notability guideline in that the subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It is entirely sourced to primary and affiliated sources (D&D game books and officially licensed publications). Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not know much about Dungeons and Dragons, but I looked at other articles existing in the D&D WikiProject for comparison. My issue is the nature of this game probably limits the number of robust and reliable secondary sources that would be produced. If we strictly apply the above notability guidelines, then we could go through and obliterate all the pages on the D&D Deities list. Doing so I feel would provide Wikipedia incomplete coverage of this topic and is definitely not an improvement. Otherwise, the use of primary sources here seems correct in regards to attaining factual information. Citation within the article also needs to be improved. User226 (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there are no hard and fast rules on Wikipedia, then where else would you discuss how to apply a guideline to an article? They are just guidelines and exceptions can be made. Like I made in another comment, does deleting this article improve Wikipedia? BTW, thank you for researching my account, but just because I finally started an account does not mean I have not been involved Wikipedia or am unfamiliar with its policies. User226 (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case you're certainly aware that arguing IAR at AfD has rarely worked...Reasoning should be particularly solid for IAR to prevail, and I just don't think you've been that convincing.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The success rate of IAR is of no concern to me if that's what would need to apply. I stated my argument above and in other comments here. If it's not good enough, then I am not going to be upset by a delete. You seem to be highly biased toward the delete based on your nominations and comments. If the above reasoning for a delete stands, then many other articles in D&D area could be deleted, thus reducing Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. The article proposed for deletion is not a short article with no sources. It also is not an essay or presenting a bunch of speculation or interpretation about the topic. Yes, it does need work for better citation and writting. User226 (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if I nominate the article for deletion, then yes, good guess, that does indeed mean I believe it doesn't fit our policies and guidelines and should go away. And yes, numerous and sometimes longer articles about D&D creatures have been deleted or merged in the past, such kind of coverage has been reduced and I don't see any problem in that. Also, if you argue IAR, then I don't see what being unsourced or speculation would change, since you strongly advocate that there are "no hard and fast rules on Wikipedia". Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point I don't feel the discussion between us will advance this topic anymore than it already has. I will let other users comment and the final reviewer make their decision to delete or keep. Also, if someone mentions IAR or the "no hard and fast rules", it doesn't mean they believe in no rules. Like you, I just believe in making Wikipedia better. You feel deleting this page advances that goal. I feel keeping it does a better job at improving Wikipedia. We will probably never agree on that point. User226 (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the rationale of Jclemens below; while this deity was just another god of the Greyhawk setting for almost 20 years, he took on a much more prominent role after inclusion as one of the primary deities for the D&D game in the third edition Player's Handbook, and remained that way for several years. That said, a merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities is better than deletion. BOZ (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to merge, I think in this situation it is better to keep a page just for organization and useability. If we delete Obad-Hai, then I can find 10 other articles in a minute on the D&D deities list that could qualify for deletion. If we try to merge all of them into a single deities article, then it would become overwhelmingly large. User226 (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Organization and useability don't supercede notability issues, and plot summary is the kind of content that can (and should) be reduced to a minimum when several articles are merged. BTW, BOZ, you do not provide any policy-based argument to your comment, especially if you include "keep" as one of your choice.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should have clarified better as by "organization and useability" I was thinking about merging many smaller articles into some large mass, which would exceed the size requirement. I also fail to see why wikipedia would not consider useability and organization for splitting a topic. Perhaps that is the web designer in me. But, based on the D&D Deities list, the "Intermediate deities" may need to be merged together. So, yes, I now see merge as a viable option. User226 (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't make up for the fact that the sources are all primary, and as such the article violates WP:GNG, WP:IINFO and WP:PSTS. Your recommendation is not supported by any policy or guideline that I can see. The article needs to show that the subject was analysed and studied by independent third parties, and is not merely fancruft.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does deleting it improve Wikipedia? It's not a short, two sentence article with no sources that is being removed. It is a high ranking page on search engines for that topic. D&D in general is a well known and large topic that Wikipedia should cover as best and factually as it can. It makes Wikipedia more complete. Given the character's history, place in the game, and appearance over a long frame of time in D&D make it notable. User226 (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see what search engines have to do with improving Wikipedia. I agree D&D in general is an important topic deserves to be covered by Wikipedia, and I think it is, in a satisfactory manner. However, I consider that dedicating a stand-alone article to each fictional elements such as monsters or gods that have no significance in the world at large (contrary to D&D itself) is excessive, and will only matter to a very selective group of enthusiasts, and that coverage of that kind can only damage WP's reputation as a serious encyclopedia and make it look no better that any fansite out there. I also don't think you can argue IAR and at the same time argue the topic would be "notable" as Wikipedia defines it. Notability on Wikipedia means "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large", and I think this is a good criteria to distinguish between content worthy of an encyclopedia and fan excess. In the end, Dungeons & Dragons is a good article that can stand on its own and doesn't need overly detailed plot regurgitation to work.Dungeons & Dragons has been mentioned outside D&D games, Obad-Hai hasn't. The rest lies in the hands of those who'll speak here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of sources and they are independent of the subject because that entity is invented, I suppose. Such sources are authoritative and therefore reliable. Warden (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator", per WP:GNG. The sources being the works in which the creators created the subject, they don't meet our notability criteria, nor WP:IINFO. We do not ask for "authoritative" content, but for proof of "attention by the world at large".Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of examples, is "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases". It's clear we're not dealing with this sort of material. Presumably the originator of the idea was Gary Gygax (referencing Tolkien?) but many of the later works were written by someone else. The coverage is good enough to establish that the topic is sufficiently substantial that people care about it and that we have reliable sources and this is the point of notability. Warden (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And where have you seen that this list of examples would be restrictive ? It's not, and clearly those sources are not independent "of the creator", since they are the creator's own works. Besides, WP:GNG also requires "secondary sources", and none of the sources are secondary because they all provide original fictional development. WP:PSTS defines "primary sources" as "fictional works", and WP:BOOKPLOT defines "primary sources about the fictional universe" as "the original work of fiction or an affiliated work of fiction". All of the sources are part of the same Dungeon & Dragons fictional franchise, by the same publisher.
    The point of notability is to ensure that the subject received attention from "the world at large", which isn't limited to "those people who created something in the first place and no one else".Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline is, by definition, loose and so examples are provided to give us a general feel. Per WP:BURO, we do not operate in a mechanical, rule-based way. I consider that sources such as Dungeons & Dragons For Dummies are quite adequate to establish that the title should not be a red-link. If you still don't care for the sources then we must agree to disagree. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, my viewpoint seems to be the dominant one here, not yours. The badgering by the nominator does not represent the general consensus as he has been banned from other Wikipedias for this.Warden (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't represent the community - you're just a tiresome fanatic who has been banned from other Wikipedia communities and so have come to annoy us here. I utterly reject your badgering and your position. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any meaningful content to whatever target seems appropriate. There may be "plenty of sources", but all of them are primary, so we don't meet WP:GNG to support an independent article. If sufficient secondary sources could be found, would be willing to support keep. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Been a significant fictional character in multiple notable works for quite some time now. This helps people understand those series better. Dream Focus 01:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • where exactly are the outside sources? Wikipedia is WP:NOT a game guide. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Articles have been kept if the subject is seen as important, even without that. The guidelines exist to help Wikipedia, not to destroy it. Dream Focus 00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What matters is not how a small portion of Wikipedians see the subject as important, but how the world at large sees it as important. Removing content that is only "interesting" to a small portion of the community and doesn't fit core policies (see WP:IINFO) is not "destroying" it. Fan wikis are better suited for this kind of content.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Invalid argument there. I'm pointing out that in many AFDs consensus has been to keep things even when they don't meet the suggested guidelines. The guideline pages say at the top of them "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Far more people in this AFD have said KEEP than DELETE. You arguing with every single person who disagrees with you isn't really going to convince anyone. Dream Focus 08:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Still WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, then. You do not offer any valid argument to ignore our inclusion policies and guidelines. And you should have learned by now that AfDs are not vote, but are decided on strength of argument. I agree about the bit you quoted from guideline headers, but "common sense" doesn't mean "head count". And I'll say the same thing I said to Warden, per WP:AFDFORMAT, AfDs are places for debate, you must be ready to see your views challenged.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dream Focus, to be considered notable on wikipedia, an article requires there be multiple non-primary (i.e., not by the publisher) references talking about the topic. If you are aware of such references in sources with editorial oversight (not just forum posts, blogs) that discuss Obad-Hai, add them to the article and I will gladly change my vote. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above. Also, see [1] to see just how common this is in the books, it in 139 of them, that not counting the role playing pen and paper games and the video games. The only thing I notice straight away that is independent is a brief mention in a book called Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies. Dream Focus 00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • And D&D for Dummies isn't even independent since it is authored by D&D writers.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's like saying that a book about mathematics is not admissable because it's written by a mathematician. Obviously, works of reference are written by specialists in the field. What matters in this case is that the book is published by John Wiley & Sons — a highly respectable academic publisher. The book is in its fourth edition and this demonstrates a lasting interest in the topic - it's not some fannish ephemera. Warden (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your comparison with maths doesn't work, of course. You have your opinion, but it's not the general consensus on Wikipedia, which is that "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator [...] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability". What matters in this case is that the book is authored by D&D writers. Well it doesn't really matter since "Obad Hai" is only mentioned once as an entry in a table and isn't usable in any way.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Enough is as good as a feast". The reputable source demonstrates the merit of having this distinctive name as a blue link in a reference work. Q.E.D., as mathematicians say. Warden (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • As a blue redirect link and some content merged elsewhere, why not, but our inclusion policies and guidelines are pretty clear this cannot be a stand alone article without significant coverage from reliable and independent secondary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 15. Snotbot  t • c »  21:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue. Deletion isn't a reasonable outcome, though merging might be. And AfD isn't the place to discuss merges. My only other comment is that D&D for dummies is an independent source as far as I can tell. That subject matter experts were hired to do the job isn't too shocking--the publisher is still independent. That said, it may be that WotC was involved in the publication rather see than this being a side project of the authors. If that's the case, I'd say not independent. But I don't believe that's the case... Hobit (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:DISCUSSAFD and Wikipedia:Merge#Merger_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion, there doesn't seem to be any problem with discussing a merge here. In the end, AfD is a place for discussion as any other, "merge" comments have become standard practice, and I personally view it as a way to ensure broader visibility and participation than a merge discussion (besides, with 100% of the article being primary/summary, full deletion could be argued). As for "...For dummies", I note on the publisher's webpage for it that it was "produced in partnership with Wizards of the Coast, written by D & D game designers" so clearly no independence can be argued here. In the end it doesn't really matter since it only contains a single trivial mention in a table...Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There have been quite a few attempts to turn Articles for Deletion into Articles for Discussion. AfD is really only if there is a reasonable case for deletion. There isn't one here as there is a clear merge target. That discussion belongs on the talk page... Hobit (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:DISCUSSAFD states that "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies", and lists "Merge", "Redirect", "Transclude" as valid recommendations. AfD has indeed become "article for discussion" per a practice which has now made its way into guidelines. I understand your views about AfDs, but I think it would be more productive for you to directly challenge WP:AfD. Note that WP:BEFORE only tells to "consider" merge "if the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own", which hasn't been decided yet, hence the AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
probably half of those hits are mine as I keep forgetting to add this page to my watchlist. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 21 June 2013 (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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Obad-Hai
No tags for this post.