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 to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luthic[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like there are secondary sources. What's more there are no plot details in this one whatsoever. It helps to give policy based reasons, but they need to take account of the actual content of the article. I do not know what "no current assertion for future improvement means". How can there be current indications of future improvement? (I assume that's meant by "assertions", or is the meaning "The article does not specifically say it can be expanded? Unless people stop writing about this game, which seems unlikely, there are certainly possibilities for future improvement. Even stub articles are acceptable, so there is no need for "extended" coverage as a criterion for keeping. Every single sentence of the nomination is incorrect. It would make as much sense to nominate this as "BLP violation". DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are primary sources from the main company, and character descriptions are plot details. There is no potential for the improvement of the article shown anywhere, as in references listed and not yet utilized or even the basic presumption that it can be salvaged to conform to current guidelines and policies. TTN (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I think you have shown that you don't actually know that much about this subject except for how to copy and paste and AFD tag to them. Maybe if you had done some research or even proposed some changes even mergers we might take your claims more seriously. But as it stands you look like you are trying to push your own POV on Wikipedia. Web Warlock (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to know anything about it (though in the case of this overall topic, I have read some of the Forgotten Realms novel series). I generally plug the name into the searches up above and look at the results. WP:BURO in regards to strictly following BEFORE by the letter. These articles are not good at all, and deleting them is perfectly fine. If they happened to have to be merged, it doesn't really matter, but deletion would be preferable to keep them from being recreated. The fact that the project let an anon revert dozens of proper merges without even intervening shows that you guys also don't really care anyway. TTN (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, The nominator's rationale clearly mentions a lack of "independent" and "third party" sourcing. That you consider the sources to be "secondary" (which is itself incorrect), doesn't change the fact they are not "independent" and "third party" (Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent). Your recommendation is thus fundamentally faulty and ignores the deletion rationale, if you want it to have any weight I advise you to amend it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Orc deities. I find the rationale behind this nom to be suspect. For example is not part of the community guideline to first propose a merger BEFORE an AFD. It doesn't matter what the nom thinks is going to happen. Speculation like that is too much like Original Research to me. Web Warlock (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasoning of DGG. --Mark viking (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What reasoning? He misidentified the official D&D resources as secondary, and the rest is just nitpicking at the wording of my rational. The article does not satisfy WP:N at this point. TTN (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as always with these articles, not a single independent secondary source so we can't verify notability. Not a single argument for keeping the article is policy based. I will change my vote to keep immediately if an editor can find a reliable independent secondary source which discusses the topic of "Luthic" in depth. Fanboys just wanna keep their cruft.--Simone 09:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or delete. Either is acceptable. I agree with Simone. There has been no credible, policy-based argument for keeping this article. It boils down to WP:ILIKEIT or zealous inclusionism. The article does not satisfy the WP:GNG, and it does not matter whether TTN uses a boilerplate or not. There are no independent, secondary sources, and the article is even helpfully tagged with PRIMARY. I don't see how any any of DGG's arguments are true. Dragon, TSR, and Wizards of the Coast are all trademarks of the publisher. How are there any secondary sources? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The official D&D resources are secondary; only the game itself is primary. But what would be correct to say is that the official resources are not independent. Given that this is simply a split, the question is one of style--whether it is best presented separately or not. And to discuss that, we need to consider the inability to prevent merged material from disappearing. That's happened many times, and it's why the fiction minimalists accept merges if they must. DGG ( talk ) 14:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, for a fictional setting across many rulebooks like D&D, secondary would be references that provide transformative information about the diety's role in the broader work than just a being with some number of stats. (Arguably, there could be first-party secondary sources, such as a notable licensed novel that goes into depth on the diety, but that's not what is being offered here, and even in that case, it would still depend what transformation is done. --MASEM (t) 04:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:FICTIONPLOT, any source that provides original (or supplementary) in-universe development to a character (ie plot) is primary by definition. For example, the 7 Harry Potter books are primary sources, not just the first one. If a source provides out of universe commentary from an author, then this is secondary information, but then when have to take into account the independence or affiliation of the source. To be clear, any book authored under copyright from WotC or D&D is affiliated (non-independent), and any book that provides supplementary storyline/gameplay elements is primary.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is about quality over quantity. Let's say hypothetically that the parent article on Dungeons and Dragons characters is the only one backed up by independent sources which substantiate notability. Would it serve the reader to find all of the material about the characters currently present on the article ? Of course not; the reader is uninterested in knowing the specifics of relatively obscure figures such as Luthic and wants to find a more general article about the sorts of characters which inhabit the Dungeons and Dragons universe. It's not a question of style whether to keep these articles; we are not allowed to have articles on non-notable topics which are subtopics of parent topics as notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not about everything, there are fanwikis which are much more suited to this endless regurgitation of trivial plot features. Simone 21:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This reply is off topic for the purposes of this discussion, but...Wikipedia is all about quantity, not quality. Quantity, in the form of comprehensive coverage, is what makes Wikipedia typically so much more useful than traditional encyclopedias. I'd rather have 100 rough articles with some useful information than 10 polished articles and and huge gaps in coverage. That groups interested in specialist topics have had to create wikis separate from Wikipedia, is frankly, a failing of our community. --Mark viking (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So where should the line be drawn? Just going from D&D, there are hundreds of character and setting articles, and that probably covers a fraction of a percent of all the possible articles. Just the Forgotten Realms setting has over ten thousand articles on their wiki, let alone all the other versions. If this character is allowed a free pass, why can't the hundreds of thousands of other characters from all other series get articles? You can try to designate major and minor topics and regulate lists, but in the end such a mindset only opens the door for a flood of people arguing that "minor character A" from "Series L" is just as important as "secondary character Q" from "series G." That's the reason for requiring a real world viewpoint so as to cover topics from an objective standpoint. TTN (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if "Wikipedia is all about quantity, not quality." then there would be no policies WP:V / WP:OR / WP:NPOV / WP:UNDUE as it is far easier to generate quantity if you dont have to actually provide any sources and can spew your personal opinion into every article. Quality matters if you care about your reputation. And Wikipedia is nothing if people dont trust the quality of the content. A large portion of the audience in fact presumes there is an official editing oversight and the assume that what they read here is " true" - we owe it to them to make quality our highest value. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is all about quantity, not quality" outright contradicts WP:NOT: "The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere on the Internet".Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect as a valid search term. No GNG-type sourcing demonstrated. --MASEM (t) 04:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fansite that would love this cruft. As for Wikipedia, there are no independent sources, only sources by the creator/officially licensed producers, no one else has found the subject worthy of note. Per WP:GNG the options would be merge, redirect or delete. Since the potential merge target itself is completely bloated with primary sourced cruft with only 1 item sourced to a potentially independent source (and the "independence" of that is arguable as the author has created officially licensed content), merge would essentially be just be shovelling the shit from one corner of the stall to another. The name is a potential search term and so redirect seems the appropriate choice. However, since redirect is where we were before it was cruftspanded by an IP, the redirect should be locked down. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the bar is being set no higher than any other project- WP:POKEMON - all articles are expected to have independent reliable sources take note of them in a significant manner. There is no exception for D&D products. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as redirect/merge to Orc deities. This article was one of a series of related articles initially merged by User:Drilnoth November 2008; the merge was reverted by an IP-only editor two and a half years later. This suggests tacit agreement that the redirect and merge was acceptable to the majority of editors associated with the wikiproject. In my opinion, a return to the status quo would serve the encyclopedia better than a prolonged and potentially heated debate over each individual deity article. (Note: there are other similar article currently nominated for deletion; I will copy this !vote/recommendation to those affected as well.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:39, 26 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or delete, per users NinjaRobotPirate and Vulcan's Forge. The keep comments blatantly ignore the nomination rationale, and fundamentally misunderstand WP:GNG and the different levels of sourcing. The article is devoid of a single secondary source, let alone independent sources, it thus fails to demonstrate notability of the topic per WP:GNG and is better merged.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge – Per NinjaRobotPirate, Vulcan's Forge, Folken de Fanel. No independent coverage has been found yet, and the subject doesn't appear likely to generate future independent coverage. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:17, 28 September 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.